[Standards] Requirements for "Jid Hidden" Channels

Steve Kille steve.kille at isode.com
Sat Jun 2 23:22:32 UTC 2018


Sam,

> 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.
[Steve Kille] 


Would you do me a BIG favour, and do a review of the new slimmed down 369 (MIX-CORE).   I've worked to get this to a simpler and cleaner base.   I would be very interested to hear which aspects of this you still believe to be too complex.


> For the level of complexity they introduce I don't think JID hidden channels are
> worth it.
[Steve Kille] 

JID Hidden is now optional and in MIX-ANON, so that those who do not want them do not need to write any code.   I have been convinced that there is a need for JID Hidden, but the stack of implicit requirements makes it a lot more complex than it need be.   In the message you replied to,  I've set out what I think should be the requirements.   I think that a simple MIX-ANON will be helpful.   I think that trying to relay IQs through the channel (which some seem to want) is OTT and making MIX-ANON complex  not be helpful to adopting MIX or MIX-ANON.

I'm hoping that we can have a sensible review of MIX-ANON / JID Hidden requirements, between those that think JID Hidden is important.

Steve





More information about the Standards mailing list