[Standards] MIX: Join protocol flow

Steve Kille steve.kille at isode.com
Mon Sep 30 10:34:00 UTC 2019


I have made a PR for XEP-405, in line with this message


Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Standards <standards-bounces at xmpp.org> On Behalf Of Steve Kille
> Sent: 18 September 2019 16:42
> To: 'XMPP Standards' <standards at xmpp.org>
> Subject: Re: [Standards] MIX: Join protocol flow
> 
> 
> Jonas has clarified that the id/jid issue is not present between current version of
> 405 and 369.
> 
> There is a version issue.  I propose to update 405 to reference core:1   and to use
> pam:2 (so there is no confusion caused by current 405).
> 
> I don't think that duplicating  369 spec in 405 is a good idea.   I believe that the
> best process is to always update 405 whenever core version is updated.    This is
> not ideal, but I think the least worst option.
> 
> Let me know if there are any objections to this
> 
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Standards <standards-bounces at xmpp.org> On Behalf Of Jonas
> > Schäfer
> > Sent: 16 September 2019 13:03
> > To: standards at xmpp.org
> > Subject: [Standards] MIX: Join protocol flow
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I have some time at my hands, and with the MIX implementation in
> > recent ejabberds, I thought I’d give it a shot.
> >
> > However, I’m already running into issues with the join flow. The
> > specification is inconsistent there between different examples in
> > XEP-0369, between XEP-0369 and XEP-0405, and between different examples
> in XEP-0405, unfortunately.
> >
> > Here’s the questions:
> >
> > 1. XEP-0405 was bumped to :pam:1, XEP-0369 was bumped to :core:1, but
> > XEP-
> > 0405 still uses :core:0 inside the client-join. Is that intentional?
> >
> > 2. XEP-0369 uses the @id attribute and the @jid attribute on <join/>.
> > The text only talks about @id, which seems to be a string, while at
> > least one example in
> > XEP-0369 (in 0.13.0 [2] which still has :core:0, which I have to use
> > for current PAM apparently) shows @jid which contains the @id from
> > another example as a substring. ISTM that @id is the intended thing to
> > do given that XEP-0369 has been updated (with the bump to :core:1) to only
> use @id. Is that correct?
> >
> > 3. The embedding of <{:core:Y}join/> inside <{:pam:X}client-join/>
> > seems error- prone to me at least specification-wise. We’d have to
> > bump :pam:X to
> > :pam:X+1 whenever we change anything in :core:Y+1, or we have to keep
> > old versions of the schema of :core:Y around so that implementors can
> > look at it easily (the attic is no such place because it’s hard to
> > find the correct version of a document for a given namespace there).
> >
> >   One way to work around this would be to re-define the
> > <{:pam:X+1}client- join/> on its own without relying on elements from
> > :core:Y. The user’s server is then responsible for translating the
> > {:pam:X+1} contents to the correct(!) version of {:core:Y}. This has
> > the obvious problem that the PAM needs to discover the correct version of
> :core:Y to use for the join to the channel.
> >
> >   I’m not really fond of that, but the current state isn’t good
> > either. Anyone got better ideas?
> >
> > kind regards,
> > Jonas
> >
> >    [1]:
> > https://xmpp.org/extensions/attic/xep-0369-0.13.0.html#example-19
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________



More information about the Standards mailing list