[Standards] MIX Addressing

Steve Kille 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?
> /K

[Steve Kille] 

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 mailing list