[Standards] Another proposal - Handling JIDs for MIX-CORE, MIX-PRESENCE and MIX-PAM
jonas at wielicki.name
Sun Jun 3 09:02:19 UTC 2018
On Sonntag, 3. Juni 2018 01:33:12 CEST Steve Kille wrote:
> Sam's message made me realize that none of the variant 1/2/3/4 stuff is
> needed for MIX-CORE. There are some things that might be needed in
> MIX-ANON, but let's worry about these in the MIX-ANON spec and keep them out
> of MIX-CORE.
> In MIX-CORE, messages/presence go to a channel or are distributed by a
> channel. There is no participant to participant (PM style) communications.
This makes sense.
> I suggest.
> 1. Messages come from the channel (channel at domain). This is what is
> happening as the channel is distributing messages. Inside each message you
> have a mandatory sender information: (Nick and Bare JID). There would be
> an elegance to putting this information into the JID, but I do not think it
> is practical and it does not gain you anything.
This sounds great.
> 2. Presence come from the channel (channel at domain). This reflects that
> the channel is distributing presence. Inside each presence stanza you have
> a mandatory sender information: (Nick and Full JID).
I’m not 100% happy with that, because this breaks with the usual semantics of
<presence/> a lot. I’m not sure if at that point, handling presence via PubSub
wouldn’t be better.
> That is it. Very simple. No variant JID addressing. There are some
> issues for MIX-ANON, but lets worry about these in MIX-ANON, and not make
> the core more complex than it needs to be.
I like this.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Standards