[Standards] Addressing for IQs in MIX-CORE

Steve Kille steve.kille at isode.com
Mon Jun 4 13:32:37 UTC 2018


 

 

From: Standards <standards-bounces at xmpp.org> On Behalf Of Dave Cridland
Sent: 04 June 2018 12:15
To: XMPP Standards <standards at xmpp.org>
Subject: Re: [Standards] Addressing for IQs in MIX-CORE

 

 

 

On 4 June 2018 at 11:37, Steve Kille <steve.kille at isode.com <mailto:steve.kille at isode.com> > wrote:


To support IQs in MIX-CORE, there needs to be an addressing  and routing
scheme.

I am proposing that this uses a different scheme to messages from the
channel (this is Kev's variant 4).

The rationale for having a different scheme is that you want to be able to
distinguish from a stanza that comes from the channel, from a stanza  (IQ)
that is relayed by the channel.

 

I think that's a false dichotomy.

 

Whether a stanza is "relayed" or not really depends on your viewpoint.

 

For example, some people see messages as relayed, and others see them as a notification from the channel that a new message was submitted.

 

You might say that IQs are relayed; I might argue that they're serviced by the channel - and the channel may service them by, itself, performing an equivalent IQ.

[Steve Kille]

I think there is a clear difference between a stanza that is routed 1:1 through the channel and a stanza which goes 1:many.   Perhaps this is a better way to describe the difference.

 

A message distributed by the channel would come from:  
    channel at domain/stable-participant-id

Bare JID is the channel, reflecting that the message comes from the channel.

An IQ message being relayed by the channel would come from:   
    stable-participant-id#channel at domain/resource

Bare JID reflects the sender, which will enable the receiver to clearly
distinguish that this is not coming from the channel.

We want to use this scheme for PMs (MIX-ANON), and here the difference
becomes more important.   You want to clearly distinguish messages from the
channel from PMs, and this approach gives a framework to achieve this.

 

So type='groupchat' is no longer enough?

[Steve Kille]

You can always work things out by looking inside the message.    If the JIDs are different, it will be helpful, particularly for messages.   For MAM access to the archive, it would be very helpful to be able to distinguish PMs by JID alone.

 

 

Steve

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20180604/9941cb3b/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list