[Standards] Another proposal - Handling JIDs for MIX-CORE, MIX-PRESENCE and MIX-PAM

Jonas Wielicki 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.

kind regards,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20180603/a2feba2d/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list