[Standards] XEP-0369: MIX - About create a room/channel

Manuel Rubio manuel at altenwald.com
Wed Apr 25 19:39:08 UTC 2018


I'm not sure if there are use cases where Owners and/or Administrators 
can be on the lists without being Participants. In my opinion, these 
roles should be subsets. The "Participants" list is the superset, the 
"Administrators" list is a subset of "Participants" and "Owners" is a 
subset of "Administrators" list.

In that way, it's easy to think that Owners should be Administrators and 
Participants. And if it's needed to have always an Owner, it's difficult 
to have inconsistencies and weird situations like Ralph says.

Kind regards.
Manuel Rubio.

El 2018-04-25 09:26, Ralph Meijer escribió:
> 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
>> implicit.
>> [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,
>> being
>>> 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
>    bare JID?
>  - 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?
> --
> ralphm
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________

More information about the Standards mailing list