[Standards] Per Channel Nicks vs Global Nicks

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Mon Jun 4 09:03:19 UTC 2018


On 4 June 2018 at 09:28, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:

> On 3 Jun 2018, at 17:13, Steve Kille <steve.kille at isode.com> wrote:
> >
> > Daniel,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Standards <standards-bounces at xmpp.org> On Behalf Of Daniel
> Gultsch
> >> Sent: 03 June 2018 08:29
> >> To: XMPP Standards <standards at xmpp.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [Standards] Another proposal - Handling JIDs for MIX-CORE,
> MIX-
> >> PRESENCE and MIX-PAM
> >>
> >> 2018-06-03 1:33 GMT+02:00 Steve Kille <steve.kille at isode.com>:
> >>> (Nick and Bare JID).
> >>
> >> I’m just on my way home from a very productive and interesting meetup
> with
> >> designers and artists. And without knowledge of the current MIX debate
> - just
> >> by analyzing the way Conversations currently implements group chats /
> MUC -
> >> people very quickly challenged the need for having per room nicks. And
> the very
> >> few arguments I was able to make in defense of having nicks in groups
> chats are
> >> only valid for anonymous groups.
> >>
> >> Just wanting to put this out there…
> >>
> >> cheers
> >> Daniel
> >
> > [Steve Kille]
> > Thanks 0 this is useful to share.
> >
> > I can see that most users joining a public channel would want to use the
> same Nick for this and for all public interactions.
>
> I think that’s usually true, yes. There are clearly cases, like the
> Discord model, where you want a different nick in different (sets of)
> channel(s), but usually on XMPP I’m Kev and want to remain Kev. I think
> that’s straightforwardly achieved by my client just setting me Kev in any
> room or channel I join based on my local preference.
>
>
I *think* that for cases where anonymity is needed for legal or
high-privacy reasons (I'm thinking ehealth in the latter, for instance),
you want to have a nickname per-channel.

(Surevine didn't need nicknames at all, but did need to be assured that an
anonymous user in one MIX channel was not identifiable as the same user in
another channel on the same service).


> > There is no global registry, where users can register Nicks.   I won't
> debate if this is good or bad.   However,  I think it means that channels
> (or MUC rooms) need to get users to pick a Nick.    I think it would be
> helpful for an XMPP client to make it easy to choose the same Nick for all
> channels.
> >
> > We also see environments where service operators want to enforce
> consistent and sensible Nicks.
>
> The ability for a channel to set the nick (override the nick) for a user
> based on local policy might not be core, but I think knowing that clients
> will react sensibly to that override is core, and so both end up needing to
> be in -core.
>
>
Yes, and ...


> > MIX has a concept of Nick Registration (now in MIX-MISC)  which provides
> a framework for users to have a single Nick across channels in a single
> domain.    This is clearly not a global Nick, but can help deployments
> where only one or a small number of MIX domains are used.
>
> I think that helps with the “don’t let someone else steal my nick” case
> (which is a definite case), but for the “just want to be Kev everywhere”
> case where Kev isn’t a popular name, probably just setting from the client
> automatically is straightforward.
>
>
... I think you can build nick registration on top of server-assigned
nicknames fairly easily later.


> /K
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20180604/edd39ba1/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list