Re: [Standards] Another proposal - Handling JIDs for MIX-CORE, MIX-PRESENCE and MIX-PAM
On 3 Jun 2018, at 00:33, Steve Kille wrote: > Sam's message made me realize that none of the variant 1/2/3/4 stuff is > needed for MIX-CORE. I’m not at all convinced that this is true. Anything that relies directly on real-JID routing is breaking PMs, and I don’t think disallowing PMs in real-JID rooms is something that’s been generally accepted. >There are some things that might be needed in > MIX-ANON, but let's worry about these in the MIX-ANON spec and keep them out > of MIX-CORE. If that were true, I’d go along with it. > In MIX-CORE, messages/presence go to a channel or are distributed by a > channel. There is no participant to participant (PM style) communications. That sounds like saying that PM communications are handled out of band, but what it really means is that PM communications can’t be achieved. > I suggest. > > 1. Messages come from the channel (channel@domain). This is what is > happening as the channel is distributing messages. Inside each message you > have a mandatory sender information: (Nick and Bare JID). There would be > an elegance to putting this information into the JID, but I do not think it > is practical and it does not gain you anything. I might buy ‘it does not gain you anything’, but I don’t see the basis for it not being practical to do so. > > 2. Presence come from the channel (channel@domain). This reflects that > the channel is distributing presence. Inside each presence stanza you have > a mandatory sender information: (Nick and Full JID). I really dislike the idea of having all the presence information inside a presence stanza. It seems very unidiomatic to have mean “One of the clients of one of the users in this channel has gone offline, and there are plenty of other presence from=X that are still online”. This will break assorted things in implementations (e.g. have an optimisation to fold presence updates for CSI? Broken. Have a client that maintains a presence map based on JID? Broken. Have a server that does 163 subscriptions? Broken. etc. etc. etc.). /K > That is it. Very simple. Very simple, but also not workable, I think. > No variant JID addressing. There are some > issues for MIX-ANON, but lets worry about these in MIX-ANON, and not make > the core more complex than it needs to be. We can’t make mix-core the simple core we’d like it to be on the promise that we fix things in mix-anon if the core itself is broken. /K ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Another proposal - Handling JIDs for MIX-CORE, MIX-PRESENCE and MIX-PAM
> Not to be confused with the stable participant identifier that you will get > upon > joining the MIX channel (of which I can't find an official term for). [Steve Kille] I'll sort this out with a round of editing, when the current conversation dies down Steve ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Another proposal - Handling JIDs for MIX-CORE, MIX-PRESENCE and MIX-PAM
On 03.06.2018 11:48, Florian Schmaus wrote: > On 03.06.2018 01:33, Steve Kille wrote: >> >> Sam's message made me realize that none of the variant 1/2/3/4 stuff is >> needed for MIX-CORE.There are some things that might be needed in >> MIX-ANON, but let's worry about these in the MIX-ANON spec and keep them out >> of MIX-CORE. >> >> In MIX-CORE, messages/presence go to a channel or are distributed by a >> channel. There is no participant to participant (PM style) communications. >> >> I suggest. >> >> 1. Messages come from the channel (channel@domain). This is what is >> happening as the channel is distributing messages. Inside each message you >> have a mandatory sender information: (Nick and Bare JID). There would be >> an elegance to putting this information into the JID, but I do not think it >> is practical and it does not gain you anything. >> >> 2. Presence come from the channel (channel@domain). This reflects that >> the channel is distributing presence. Inside each presence stanza you have >> a mandatory sender information: (Nick and Full JID). >> >> >> That is it. Very simple. No variant JID addressing. There are some >> issues for MIX-ANON, but lets worry about these in MIX-ANON, and not make >> the core more complex than it needs to be. > > That very much looks like that I would currently favour, besides that I > don't see a reason why we shouldn't also use the stable participant > identifier as the resourcepart of the originating address. Uh, and I slightly favour presence also from channel@mix.service/stable-participant-id/unique-client-id as otherwise you will get presence from different devices from the same address. But presence from users with multiple devices is not trivial anyway, not only in the context of MIX, so no matter what we do, someone has to handle it. I still prefer keeping the invariant that presence comes from a unique address per user session, because I think it has the potential to make things easier. - Florian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Another proposal - Handling JIDs for MIX-CORE, MIX-PRESENCE and MIX-PAM
On 03.06.2018 01:33, Steve Kille wrote: > > Sam's message made me realize that none of the variant 1/2/3/4 stuff is > needed for MIX-CORE.There are some things that might be needed in > MIX-ANON, but let's worry about these in the MIX-ANON spec and keep them out > of MIX-CORE. > > In MIX-CORE, messages/presence go to a channel or are distributed by a > channel. There is no participant to participant (PM style) communications. > > I suggest. > > 1. Messages come from the channel (channel@domain). This is what is > happening as the channel is distributing messages. Inside each message you > have a mandatory sender information: (Nick and Bare JID). There would be > an elegance to putting this information into the JID, but I do not think it > is practical and it does not gain you anything. > > 2. Presence come from the channel (channel@domain). This reflects that > the channel is distributing presence. Inside each presence stanza you have > a mandatory sender information: (Nick and Full JID). > > > That is it. Very simple. No variant JID addressing. There are some > issues for MIX-ANON, but lets worry about these in MIX-ANON, and not make > the core more complex than it needs to be. That very much looks like that I would currently favour, besides that I don't see a reason why we shouldn't also use the stable participant identifier as the resourcepart of the originating address. Further metadata, like nickname, unique client id (or whatever it is called), can be put into a extension element of the message and presence stanzas. Sending IQs would require a lookup of the address of desired participant's device which would yield something like channel@mix.service/stable-participant-id/unique-client-id That also means that you could send messages either to all devices of a participant via channel@mix.service/stable-participant-id or to a particular devices of a participant channel@mix.service/stable-participant-id/unique-client-id e.g. for IBB and the like. - Florian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Another proposal - Handling JIDs for MIX-CORE, MIX-PRESENCE and MIX-PAM
On 03.06.2018 10:56, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Sonntag, 3. Juni 2018 09:29:13 CEST Daniel Gultsch wrote: >> 2018-06-03 1:33 GMT+02:00 Steve Kille : >>> (Nick and Bare JID). >> >> I’m just on my way home from a very productive and interesting meetup >> with designers and artists. And without knowledge of the current MIX >> debate - just by analyzing the way Conversations currently implements >> group chats / MUC - people very quickly challenged the need for having >> per room nicks. And the very few arguments I was able to make in >> defense of having nicks in groups chats are only valid for anonymous >> groups. >> >> Just wanting to put this out there… > > This is also a good point. Maybe we want to move nicknames to MIX-ANON (or > maybe another extension), too. The display name could be drawn from the > roster, the vcard, XEP-0172, or similar. As far as I understood nicknames are already optional in current MIX. If that's the case, then it should be moved out of MIX-CORE. Not to be confused with the stable participant identifier that you will get upon joining the MIX channel (of which I can't find an official term for). - Florian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Another proposal - Handling JIDs for MIX-CORE, MIX-PRESENCE and MIX-PAM
On Sonntag, 3. Juni 2018 01:33:12 CEST Steve Kille wrote: > Sam's message made me realize that none of the variant 1/2/3/4 stuff is > needed for MIX-CORE.There are some things that might be needed in > MIX-ANON, but let's worry about these in the MIX-ANON spec and keep them out > of MIX-CORE. > > In MIX-CORE, messages/presence go to a channel or are distributed by a > channel. There is no participant to participant (PM style) communications. This makes sense. > I suggest. > > 1. Messages come from the channel (channel@domain). This is what is > happening as the channel is distributing messages. Inside each message you > have a mandatory sender information: (Nick and Bare JID). There would be > an elegance to putting this information into the JID, but I do not think it > is practical and it does not gain you anything. This sounds great. > 2. Presence come from the channel (channel@domain). This reflects that > the channel is distributing presence. Inside each presence stanza you have > a mandatory sender information: (Nick and Full JID). I’m not 100% happy with that, because this breaks with the usual semantics of a lot. I’m not sure if at that point, handling presence via PubSub wouldn’t be better. > That is it. Very simple. No variant JID addressing. There are some > issues for MIX-ANON, but lets worry about these in MIX-ANON, and not make > the core more complex than it needs to be. I like this. kind regards, Jonas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Another proposal - Handling JIDs for MIX-CORE, MIX-PRESENCE and MIX-PAM
On Sonntag, 3. Juni 2018 09:29:13 CEST Daniel Gultsch wrote: > 2018-06-03 1:33 GMT+02:00 Steve Kille : > > (Nick and Bare JID). > > I’m just on my way home from a very productive and interesting meetup > with designers and artists. And without knowledge of the current MIX > debate - just by analyzing the way Conversations currently implements > group chats / MUC - people very quickly challenged the need for having > per room nicks. And the very few arguments I was able to make in > defense of having nicks in groups chats are only valid for anonymous > groups. > > Just wanting to put this out there… This is also a good point. Maybe we want to move nicknames to MIX-ANON (or maybe another extension), too. The display name could be drawn from the roster, the vcard, XEP-0172, or similar. kind regards, Jonas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] Another proposal - Handling JIDs for MIX-CORE, MIX-PRESENCE and MIX-PAM
2018-06-03 1:33 GMT+02:00 Steve Kille : > (Nick and Bare JID). I’m just on my way home from a very productive and interesting meetup with designers and artists. And without knowledge of the current MIX debate - just by analyzing the way Conversations currently implements group chats / MUC - people very quickly challenged the need for having per room nicks. And the very few arguments I was able to make in defense of having nicks in groups chats are only valid for anonymous groups. Just wanting to put this out there… cheers Daniel ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
[Standards] Another proposal - Handling JIDs for MIX-CORE, MIX-PRESENCE and MIX-PAM
Sam's message made me realize that none of the variant 1/2/3/4 stuff is needed for MIX-CORE.There are some things that might be needed in MIX-ANON, but let's worry about these in the MIX-ANON spec and keep them out of MIX-CORE. In MIX-CORE, messages/presence go to a channel or are distributed by a channel. There is no participant to participant (PM style) communications. I suggest. 1. Messages come from the channel (channel@domain). This is what is happening as the channel is distributing messages. Inside each message you have a mandatory sender information: (Nick and Bare JID). There would be an elegance to putting this information into the JID, but I do not think it is practical and it does not gain you anything. 2. Presence come from the channel (channel@domain). This reflects that the channel is distributing presence. Inside each presence stanza you have a mandatory sender information: (Nick and Full JID). That is it. Very simple. No variant JID addressing. There are some issues for MIX-ANON, but lets worry about these in MIX-ANON, and not make the core more complex than it needs to be. Steve ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
