Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
In the Council meeting just ended, Kevin Smith suggested that we might
want to bring back the old jabber:x:conference namespace:
You have been invited to the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] room.
Older clients already support that, so the suggestion seems reasonab
This looks ugly and unnecessary to me.
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:01:54 +0200
Jonathan Schleifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am 20.08.2008 um 01:01 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
>
> > >from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/desktop'
> >to='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'>
> >
> > >id='some-long-id-here
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 02:52:50 +0100
"Matthew Wild" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Peter Saint-Andre
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Pavel Simerda wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok, just... couldn't this be at least partially automated (not to
> >> have the sure check himself)? If
XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: Direct MUC Invitations
Abstract: This specification defines a method for inviting a contact
to a multi-user chat room directly, instead of sending the invitation
through the chat room.
URL: h
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Am 20.08.2008 um 01:01 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
^^
How about this instead?
some_id (doesn't even need to be long)
Element, attribute, whatever.
Are you sure current implementations will not route
Am 20.08.2008 um 01:01 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
^^
How about this instead?
some_id (doesn't even need to be long)
Are you sure current implementations will not route that?
For the clients, it doesn't matter if they ignore it,
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
XEP-0045 doesn't say anything about this and client developers seem
to have handled it just fine. But yes we could say something about
timeouts, or add an ID to the invitations, or say that the client
should match the invi
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> XEP-0045 doesn't say anything about this and client developers seem
> to have handled it just fine. But yes we could say something about
> timeouts, or add an ID to the invitations, or say that the client
> should match the inviter (both mediated and
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Am 18.08.2008 um 22:52 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
"If a client receives multiple invitations to the same room (e.g., a
mediated invitation as defined in XEP-0045 and a direct invitation as
defined here), the client SHOULD present only one of the invitations
to a huma
Am 18.08.2008 um 22:52 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
"If a client receives multiple invitations to the same room (e.g., a
mediated invitation as defined in XEP-0045 and a direct invitation
as defined here), the client SHOULD present only one of the
invitations to a human user. If a client rece
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Thu Aug 14 19:03:24 2008, Matthew Wild wrote:
IRC has the concept of invitation-only rooms. Although this isn't
implemented in any MUC server that I know of, today's protocol leaves
the option for implementation open, while this one doesn't.
Why not do what we discussed
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do clients now handle receipt of two invitations (both mediated)?
They show two invitations and give a message that you are already
joined on the second one.
We could add a phrase to the directed MUC invitation like "
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do clients now handle receipt of two invitations (both mediated)?
They show two invitations and give a message that you are already
joined on the second one.
We could add a phrase to the directed MUC invitation like "The directed
invitation shou
On Thu Aug 14 19:03:24 2008, Matthew Wild wrote:
IRC has the concept of invitation-only rooms. Although this isn't
implemented in any MUC server that I know of, today's protocol
leaves
the option for implementation open, while this one doesn't.
Why not do what we discussed in ages past? Leav
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Another idea would be to send both, directed and via the server. We'd
just need to find a way to only display that once. Maybe give the
invitation an ID? That way, the invited user will be added to the
members list AND be able to join, even if there's a privacy list
bloc
Another idea would be to send both, directed and via the server. We'd
just need to find a way to only display that once. Maybe give the
invitation an ID? That way, the invited user will be added to the
members list AND be able to join, even if there's a privacy list
blockig the invitation from the
Dave Cridland wrote:
For "real" authentication, you'd want to use SASL between the client and
the MUC service, but if you did this, a rogue server could still
intercept the normal MUC messages. So what you need to do is have
integrity protected and encrypted messages, which effectively means
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In fact that's a members-only room, as currently defined in the XEP
(nothing special about ejabberd there). The joining user doesn't
present an invitation, instead the MUC service adds the joining user
to the member list wh
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In fact that's a members-only room, as currently defined in the XEP
> (nothing special about ejabberd there). The joining user doesn't
> present an invitation, instead the MUC service adds the joining user
> to the member list when the invitation is
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Am 18.08.2008 um 04:20 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
Agreed. Members-only rooms seem much more natural than invite-only
rooms, especially because we have authenticated identities.
I think an invite-only room would be i
On Mon Aug 18 07:14:00 2008, Johansson Olle E wrote:
18 aug 2008 kl. 04.20 skrev Peter Saint-Andre:
Agreed. Members-only rooms seem much more natural than invite-only
rooms, especially because we have authenticated identities. IRC
doesn't have authentication, so they might need some kind of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Am 18.08.2008 um 04:20 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
Agreed. Members-only rooms seem much more natural than invite-only
rooms, especially because we have authenticated identities.
I think an invite-only room would be interesting for continued
18 aug 2008 kl. 04.20 skrev Peter Saint-Andre:
Matthew Wild wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Pavel Simerda wrote:
Ok, just... couldn't this be at least partially automated (not to
have the sure check himself)? If it's not possible, never m
Matthew Wild wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pavel Simerda wrote:
Ok, just... couldn't this be at least partially automated (not to
have the sure check himself)? If it's not possible, never mind.
Sure it could. I'm not sure if we really need
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pavel Simerda wrote:
>>
>> Ok, just... couldn't this be at least partially automated (not to
>> have the sure check himself)? If it's not possible, never mind.
>
> Sure it could. I'm not sure if we really need that, giv
Pavel Simerda wrote:
Ok, just... couldn't this be at least partially automated (not to
have the sure check himself)? If it's not possible, never mind.
Sure it could. I'm not sure if we really need that, given that
members-only rooms are relatively uncommon, but we could presumably
define a da
Ok, just... couldn't this be at least partially automated (not to
have the sure check himself)? If it's not possible, never mind.
Pavel
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:08:55 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:47:17 -0600
> > Peter Saint-An
Pavel Simerda wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:47:17 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pavel Simerda wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:55:28 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pavel Simerda wrote:
But then what is an invitation for? You have to make someone a
member
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:47:17 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:55:28 -0600
> > Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Pavel Simerda wrote:
> >>> But then what is an invitation for? You have to make someone a
> >>> member
Pavel Simerda wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:55:28 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pavel Simerda wrote:
But then what is an invitation for? You have to make someone a
member and send him an invitation message. But for this, you have
to be able to add members.
I don't think th
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:55:28 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:27:22 -0600
> > Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Pavel Simerda wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:18:43 -0500
> >>> XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAI
Pavel Simerda wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:27:22 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pavel Simerda wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:18:43 -0500
XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/direct-invitations.html
Hmm, good idea, this si
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:27:22 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:18:43 -0500
> > XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/direct-invitations.html
> >
> > Hmm, good idea, this s
Matthew Wild wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pavel Simerda wrote:
It seems MUC authorization was removed from [xep 0235]. Isn't now
the time to find a better place for it?
Maybe. I'm not sure how useful MUC authorization is.
IRC has the c
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pavel Simerda wrote:
>> It seems MUC authorization was removed from [xep 0235]. Isn't now
>> the time to find a better place for it?
>
> Maybe. I'm not sure how useful MUC authorization is.
>
IRC has the concept of inv
Pavel Simerda wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:18:43 -0500
XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/direct-invitations.html
Hmm, good idea, this simple direct invitation protocol, it makes sense
to send invitation to the people I invite.
Well that'
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:18:43 -0500
XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/direct-invitations.html
Hmm, good idea, this simple direct invitation protocol, it makes sense
to send invitation to the people I invite.
Just a sidenote, couldn't "venue"
XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/direct-invitations.html
Just spotted that typo:
> The and
> elements are OPTIONAL.
--
Jonathan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: Direct MUC Invitations
Abstract: This specification defines a method for inviting a contact to a
multi-user chat room directly, instead of sending the invitation through the
chat room.
URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/
39 matches
Mail list logo
