[Standards] MIX: Roster entries -> private PEP node (or something)

Linus Jahn lnj at kaidan.im
Sun Sep 15 11:21:17 UTC 2019

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 16:20:53 +0000
Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> at the last summit we sort of came to the conclusion that we want to
> get rid of MIX roster entries and instead place 'joined channels' into
> a private PEP node or some other (non roster) place.
> The arguments in favor of roster were that it can be used to
> automatically send presence; However the same is true for any other
> storage place as the server can just decide to do that.
> Speaking against putting it in the roster is that it couples roster
> and MIX (some modern implementations might not want to use a roster
> but want to use MIX).

I don't think there's anything wrong with the roster. If you don't use
the roster for contacts, the roster just will only contain MIX channels.

The roster approach would have the advantage that you could
(theoretically) use MIX with _any_ XMPP client. Sending and receiving
messages to a MIX channel does not require any special extensions;
clients not supporting MIX just couldn't display user nicknames in

I also think it would make sense to put normal contacts and groupchats
into the same place, because most modern clients will display them
together anyway and you could still display them separately if you want

> For my own implementation i’m currently stuck at this point because
> loading the list of joined channels is the next logical step but
> without defining the syntax to retrieve that (and without having a
> server implementation) I can’t really move forward with that.

We basically have the same problem and the server developers don't want
to implement a standard that is going to be changed soon anyway.

> So could we (as a community) reconfirm that we actually want to move
> mix entries out of the roster and then define where we want to store
> them again?
> cheers
> Daniel

I have already implemented the current standard with roster entries, so
I'd be happy if we could just use that, but changing it to a PEP node
would also be OK. Important to me personally would be that we decide
for one way and update the XEP(s).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20190915/6390ab45/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list