[Standards] Requirements for "Jid Hidden" Channels

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Sat Jun 2 21:08:55 UTC 2018


Hi,



2018-06-02 19:17 GMT+02:00 Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com>:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018, at 11:36, Steve Kille wrote:
>> It was agreed clearly that we need JID Hidden, primarily to prevent JID
>> Harvesting.   This is going to be useful for public and semi-public
>> channels.
>
> I've mostly been avoiding the MIX discussion because in its current form I belive that it is too complex to ever gain wide adoption and as far as I can tell this is the root cause of that.
> For the level of complexity they introduce I don't think JID hidden channels are worth it.
> We can always explore other mechanisms later, and maybe come up with a more general anonymity protocol that works for direct communication and group chats (eg. by making burner JIDs or some alternative work for the MIX use case) and doesn't require making MIX unnecessarily complicated.

sorry I’m very busy these days and haven’t followed the wider MIX
discussion a lot but I mostly agree with Sam here

in that

a) public, anonymous rooms should not be a priority for MIX
b) if hiding JIDs adds a lot of complexity to MIX it should be avoided
c) anonymity / proxy jids can be added as an afterthought and might
actually be useful outside MIX as well and thus should probably be in
a separate XEP (I had be contemplating the idea of a dezentralized
push alternative that would benefit from proxy jids as well because
you don’t want to leak your real jid to the app server)
d) MUC wont go away any time soon. So people who want to keep their
anonymity and their complicated IRC-like access model will still be
able to use MUC. So in theory you could keep MUC around for the public
groups chats and have MIX be optimized for the WhatsApp like groups

cheers
Daniel


More information about the Standards mailing list