[Standards] MIX Addressing

Florian Schmaus flo at geekplace.eu
Fri Jun 1 15:47:35 UTC 2018


On 31.05.2018 13:45, Kevin Smith wrote:
> We’ve had some discussions recently about whether presence should come from the channel’s JID, the user’s proxy JID, or be encoded in pubsub. Similarly whether messages should be coming from the channel’s JID or the user’s proxy JID. I think the argument that things should come from the user’s in-channel JID rather than the channel’s is reasonable - this is also what happens already in MUC and is familiar.
> 
> The reason for the proxy JIDs is that we need a stable identifier for the user in the channel,
> and we need it to be addressable per client.

Why was that again? Do we really need to encode four bits of information
in a single JID?

Otherwise we could go with channel at service/user and, possibly
optionally, put the (pseudo) resource as metadata into an extension
element. And if a client really wants to enumerate all resources/clients
of a remote MIX user, he could look at the presence node of the user.

That is essentially jonas's proposal:

  <message type="groupchat"
           from="4973d5d365f8 at mixservice.domain.example/client-resource"
           to="user at other.example">
    <mix channel="some-channel"/>
    <body>...</body>
  </message>

with the channel, resource and user swapped. So you end up with:

<message from="channel at mixservice.domain.example/user"
         to="user at other.example" …>
  <mix-message sender-resource="b481e03f-c633-4704-a877-f8222eb02bc7"/>
  <body>…</body>
</message>

- Florian

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 618 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20180601/25782eba/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list