[Standards] XEP-0369: MIX - About create a room/channel
steve.kille at isode.com
Thu Apr 26 07:37:10 UTC 2018
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Meijer <ralphm at ik.nu>
> Sent: 25 April 2018 08:26
> To: XMPP Standards <standards at xmpp.org>; Steve Kille
> <steve.kille at isode.com>
> Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0369: MIX - About create a room/channel
> 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 MUST here is very confused. I will sort this text out.
Key text I believe is " Where no owner is explicitly set, it is anticipated that a
> server administrator will have owner rights."
> 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?
Some clarification is definitely needed here. I will work at this text.
My intended model here is that owners and administrators need not be participants. I think there are good use cases for this. For example:
1. A corporate setup, where channels are created and manged by sys admins, who will typically not be participants in the channels.
2. An IoT type scenario where the participants are light bulbs and the owner is a human.
I would expect that someone creating a channel does not automatically join it. Once a channel has been created, the channel creator can optionally choose to join the channel.
Participant list is managed on the basis of join/leave.
More information about the Standards