[Standards] MUC Mention Notifications

JC Brand lists at opkode.com
Wed Dec 30 16:28:37 UTC 2020



On 19.12.20 16:41, Andrzej Wojcik wrote:

>> To enable this feature, I've opted for a configuration setting in the 
>> MUC.
>>
>> Apparently Tigase already has a similar feature to this protoXEP and 
>> relies on letting the user opt-in when registering a nickname with 
>> the MUC.
>>
>> Maybe someone from Tigase can comment on the particulars of that. My 
>> understanding is that this necessitates the ability to self-register 
>> in a MUC, which IMO adds a hurdle to adoption of this feature.
>
> Our approach was designed to solve MUC issue on the iOS based device 
> where XMPP connection cannot be kept alive while in the background.
>
> The idea was to enable MUC room to send groupchat messages (any 
> message, not just mentions) to the user even if he is offline.
> Additionally with nickname registration, we were able to present 
> offline users but subscribed with offline notifications as away in the 
> rooms.
> That also allowed us to block nickname from being used in this room by 
> anyone else and did not require any modification on the senders client 
> side as the room was forwarding all messages and thanks to the logic 
> on users local server push notifications to the users client were 
> generated.
>
> In the proposed protoXEP <reference/> element contains real bare JID 
> of the user affiliated with the room, which is available, if I'm 
> correct, only in non-anonymous rooms. In semi-anonymous it may not be 
> available. Due to that it restricts usage of the protoXEP only to the 
> cases in which bare jids of users in the room are known to the occupants.

You could still reference the person by MUC JID and nickname, as long as 
the nickname is registered (i.e. exclusive to one user) in the MUC.

> Additionally I'm not sure if affiliation of a user with a room is 
> enough for sending notifications as nickname used to mention someone 
> could be already taken by someone else (if affiliation will not block 
> nickname from being reuse and AFAIR it does not).

I was under the assumption that all affiliated users have their 
nicknames registered (i.e. the nicks can't be taken by anyone else). Is 
this wrong?

If this requirement is too lax, then I guess we'll have to update the 
XEP to require nickname registration instead of (just) affiliation.





More information about the Standards mailing list