[Standards] Using route-able JIDs in MIX-CORE

Steve Kille steve.kille at isode.com
Sun Jun 3 16:01:15 UTC 2018


> > That very much looks like that I would currently favour, besides that
> > I don't see a reason why we shouldn't also use the stable participant
> > identifier as the resourcepart of the originating address.
> Uh, and I slightly favour presence also from
> channel at mix.service/stable-participant-id/unique-client-id
> as otherwise you will get presence from different devices from the same
> address. But presence from users with multiple devices is not trivial anyway, not
> only in the context of MIX, so no matter what we do, someone has to handle it. I
> still prefer keeping the invariant that presence comes from a unique address per
> user session, because I think it has the potential to make things easier.

[Steve Kille] 

This is an important point.    All of the information needed is carried in the message.    So a change like this does not provide any more information to the final recipient.

However, it means that the JID will be unique for each sending client.   This can facilitate an implementation handling JIDs internally, by enabling sensible switching of messages.

If we do this,  I think that it makes sense (for similar reasons) to have messages sent from a JID that uniquely identifies the sender of form:  channel at mix.service/stable-participant-id

Are there any downsides to doing this?


More information about the Standards mailing list