[Standards] XEP-0369: MIX - About create a room/channel
ralphm at ik.nu
Wed Apr 25 07:26:22 UTC 2018
On 2018-04-24 09:09, Steve Kille wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Standards <standards-bounces at xmpp.org> On Behalf Of Ralph Meijer
>> Sent: 23 April 2018 21:41
>> So, does that mean you can create a room in such a way that you lack full
>> control over? That doesn't sound optimal, although I like explicit over
> [Steve Kille]
> I agree that explicit is good. It is also clean if you want to create a
> room without an owner or with owners not yourself.
>> What happens if you omit the Owners field? Is the default a single item,
>> the bare JID of the creator?
> [Steve Kille]
> 3.9.11 says: " Bare JIDs with Owner rights as defined in ACL node. When a
> channel is created, the JID creating the channel is configured as an owner,
> unless this attribute is explicitly configured to another value."
> This is effectively saying Owner is mandatory. I think that I will add
> text to explicitly say that a channel must have an owner.
> Does this make sense?
Section 3.9.1 says two things:
1) Only owners are allowed to modify the channel configuration node.
2) There MUST always be at least one Owner for a Channel. Owners,
Administrators, Participants, and Allowed are optional and do not need
to be set. Where no owner is explicitly set, it is anticipated that a
server administrator will have owner rights. [..]
I think 1 follows from 2, simply because if you have no owner, there
can be no changes to the Channel afterwards. So I do think that 2) makes
sense. I'm a bit unsure about the part where it anticipates about server
administrators, and how that interacts with the MUST in the previous
sentence. If you value explicit over implicit, I'd do away with
this bit of vagueness.
The text for 2 continues with:
“Rights are defined in a strictly hierarchical manner following the
order of this table, so that for example Owners will always have
rights that Administrators have.”
This seems to imply that Administrators and Owners "have the rights of"
Participants. Are they actually in the list of Participants? If so:
- What does it mean to be in the list of Participants (including
Administrators and Owners), if there was no explicit join from that
- Is such an entity just not subscribed to any nodes?
- How do roster modifications work in this case?
- Can an administrator modify this list with a PubSub publish, like the
Allowed node? The above would also imply that you can add people to a
channel without using the invite system in 6.1.16.
- Does leaving the room affect these lists?
- If so, what happens when the last Owner leaves the room?
More information about the Standards