[Standards] XEP-0045 MUC: am I still there?

Florian Schmaus flo at geekplace.eu
Wed Apr 11 17:03:47 UTC 2018


On 10.04.2018 15:08, Georg Lukas wrote:
> * Georg Lukas <georg at op-co.de> [2017-10-04 10:21]:
>> 2. Create a new, explicit am-I-joined IQ that a client can send to the
>>    MUC JID.
> 
> This seems to be the winner of the discussion from last October, even
> though it was qualified as a "sticking plaster".
> 
> To keep with the "sticking plaster" qualification, I propose to
> implement it as an XEP-0199 ping to the participant's own full-JID:
> 
> ```
> <iq from='juliet at capulet.lit/balcony' to='coven at chat.shakespeare.lit/thirdwitch' id='c2s1' type='get'>
>   <ping xmlns='urn:xmpp:ping'/>
> </iq>
> ```
> (assuming here that Juliet is [impersonating] the third witch in the MUC)
> 
> The MUC would then intercept the <ping/> and respond directly, instead
> of routing the IQ to a random resource of Juliet's. If Juliet is joined
> as 'thirdwitch', the MUC will directly respond with a result IQ.

That's probably fine.

> If
> Juliet is not joined, the MUC will respond with <not-acceptable/>.

I feel like this is missing "or if the ping request does not originate
from Juliet". Or is this intentional?

I personally would probably not re-use xep199 for this, but define new
IQ. That is mostly because I don't know which two code paths you mean here:

> - clients don't need two different code paths depending on a
>  'self-ping-supported' feature

Care to elaborate?

- Florian


More information about the Standards mailing list