[Standards] MIX Addressing

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Fri Jun 1 16:22:51 UTC 2018


On 1 June 2018 at 17:19, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:

> On 01.06.2018 17:57, Kevin Smith wrote:
> > On 1 Jun 2018, at 16:47, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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?
> >
> > IQs, mostly, they need to be address translated to the user’s full JID,
> which means encoding the full JID and the channel into the initial ‘to’.
>
> But that only means you need a way to retrieve a JID which acts as proxy
> JID for the user's real full JID. Not that MIX messages have to
> originate from such an address. Right?
>
> >> <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>
> >
> > That looks rather like option 2, with the added resource payload (which
> is probably not needed?). Option 2 sees messages sent from channel at domain/user.
> Presence is different (but you note looking at the presence node for
> full-JID information here as well).
>
> It sure is similar. I just wonder if MIX channels need to send
> participants presences from a JID that encodes all four bits of
> information (similar to what Steve suggested).
>
> Alternatively: Why do MIX channels need to send presence status of
> *participants* as "standard" presence stanzas? Instead interested
> parties could retrieve presence updates via standard pubsub push
> messages (If I read xep403 correctly, presence information is already
> stored in PubSub nodes).
>
>
You're suggesting XEP-0207?


> - Florian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20180601/5b01a581/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list