[Standards] Update to MIX 0.9.7
steve.kille at isode.com
Thu May 10 21:16:59 UTC 2018
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manuel Rubio <manuel at altenwald.com>
> Sent: 10 May 2018 21:03
> To: XMPP Standards <standards at xmpp.org>
> Cc: Steve Kille <steve.kille at isode.com>
> Subject: Re: [Standards] Update to MIX 0.9.7
> 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.
All this is doing is allowing you to create channels with mandatory presence. If you want a channel that has optional presence this is fine (and the default)
> > 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.
This is not straightforward. Lets try the separate XEP. If it comes out really short and is not useful anywhere else, we can consider folding it back in
More information about the Standards