[Standards] Update to MIX 0.9.7

Manuel Rubio manuel at altenwald.com
Thu May 10 20:03:28 UTC 2018

Hello Steve,

El 2018-05-09 15:53, Steve Kille escribió:
> 3.  Mandatory presence (3.9.7).   There is an option for a MIX  channel 
> to
> require presence.  This allows a channel to specify the current MUC
> behaviour that online clients are visible with presence (and no 
> "hidden"
> listeners, which some might object to on privacy grounds).   This 
> cannot be
> enforced by the MIX channel, so it is a policy that compliant MIX 
> clients
> are expected to follow.   I have clarified this in the text.   It seems
> useful to me, but we could drop this option if people feel it will 
> never be
> useful.

I think presence SHOULD NOT be mandatory. In my particular case we're 
not using presence at all and I like the flexibility to include/exclude 
nodes in the features of the channel.

> 5.  6.3 (Ensuring Message Delivery) describes an important function for 
> MIX.
> The detailed approach has issues, which Florian Schmaus flags.   Jonas
> Wielicki also flagged the issues in Feb 2017.   I am replacing this 
> section
> with a reference to a (yet to be written) XEP.    Rationale:
>     - We clearly do not have the spec right
>     - Reliable message delivery seems like a generic capability that 
> could
> be used elsewhere.

I still considere that XEP-0199 (ping) fits better than use "markable" 
that is confusing because of the use of the same tag in XEP-0333 (chat 
markers). It's not needed to write a whole new XEP for that IMO.

Kind regards.
Manuel Rubio.

More information about the Standards mailing list