[Standards] MIX Addressing
steve.kille at isode.com
Fri Jun 1 17:11:39 UTC 2018
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Standards <standards-bounces at xmpp.org> On Behalf Of Kevin Smith
> Sent: 01 June 2018 14:37
> To: XMPP Standards <standards at xmpp.org>
> Subject: Re: [Standards] MIX Addressing
> On 1 Jun 2018, at 11:37, Steve Kille <steve.kille at isode.com> wrote:
> > 1. Use variant 2 for messages. Messages will come from bare JID of channel,
> with resource being stable ID indicating the sender. Sender JID and Nick in the
> message. This works right for MAM, and I think it is reasonably natural for
> messages to always come from the channel JID.
> > 2. Use variant 1 for presence. The presence will come from a JID that
> encodes both channel and stable ID. Sender JID and Nick carried inside the
> presence. This means that the From: in the presence bare JID reflects the
> participant rather than the channel.
> It’s not immediately clear to me which processing this makes easier. Clearly a
> client *can* do the mangling from one to the other with precious little effort,
> but what does the inconsistency buy us?
If we are going to use two variant, I think that the approach would be to have the key thing standardized as the "stable-participant-id" which is the unique id for each channel participant.
I think that for messages it is important that the from bare JID is the channel. This is needed to make MAM work usefully. When a client needs to synchronize messages, it asks for messages from the channel. Therefore, I think that variant 2 is key for messages. So JIDs of the form channel at domain/stable-participant-id . Because of MAM, I think that using variant 1 for messages would be a mistake. I note the currently MIX uses just channel at domain.
For presence, you need a resource. You could use variant 2, and construct channel at domain/stable-participant-id/resource for the form. I could live with this.
I think that variant 1 is preferable. So stable-participant-id#channel at domain/resource . The reason is that this makes the bare JID reflect the sender to which the presence message relates. I think that it is cleaner for presence to have the bare JID reflect the sender rather than the channel.
More information about the Standards