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

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Mon Jun 4 06:51:19 UTC 2018


On 3 Jun 2018, at 17:01, Steve Kille <steve.kille at isode.com> wrote:
> 
> Flo,
> 
>>> 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?

There are, with PMs, mentioned in earlier threads (when introducing variant 4), but I can’t immediately think of any for room messages.

/K


More information about the Standards mailing list