Re: [Standards] admin->none, what happens to user if in member-only room
Am 22.09.2011 01:23, schrieb Kurt Zeilenga: On Sep 21, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Alexander Holler wrote: Am 21.09.2011 03:03, schrieb Kurt Zeilenga: While XEP 45, Section 9.4 is reasonable clear that loss of membership causes a kick from the room, Section 10.7 is less clear of what happens on loss of admin privs. 10.7 says: If the user is in the room, the service MUST then send updated presence from this individual to all occupants, indicating the loss of administrative privileges by sending a presence element that contains an element qualified by the 'http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user' namespace and containing an child with the 'affiliation' attribute set to a value other than "admin" or "owner" and the 'role' attribute set to an appropriate value given the affiliation level and the room type and then gives an example of showing the user moved to participant. It doesn't detail what actually is 'appropriate'. Table 4 (5.1.2 Default Roles) shows what is appropriate. Where does this table, or anywhere in that section, does it say what actions are triggered due to the affiliation change? This table lists which role to apply. So if some gets the affiliation none in a member-only room, he has to be kicked. Otherwise the client has to set the new affiliation to member instead of none. 9.4 (Revoking Membership) explains in detail what happens when membershipis removed. I don't see any uncertainty here. Regards, Alexander
Re: [Standards] admin->none, what happens to user if in member-only room
On 9/21/11 7:02 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: > > On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: > >> On 22 September 2011 00:46, Kurt Zeilenga >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:43 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> >> However I would consider it reasonable in a members-only room for removal from the Owners List or the Admins List to result in adding that person to the Members List. >>> >>> The client could offer you that option, possibly as its default. >>> >>> But let's talk wire semantics. >> >> Wire semantics are simple. A members-only room cannot contain >> someone with an affiliation of 'none'. Therefore if you set >> someone's affiliation to 'none' they must be removed from the room, >> regardless of what affiliation they had prior to the 'none' >> affiliation. >> >> Peter is correct too, in that it doesn't make much sense to kick >> an admin from the room just because they lost their admin rights. >> But in this case it's up to the client to do the right thing (make >> them a member) instead. > > So we're agreeing on what we expect from the server… > > So, back to my concern, I don't think XEP 45 section 10.7 is all that > clear in that it doesn't distinguish a move to member affiliation > from a move to none, which leads to different actions for member-only > rooms. A reader could easily take the example as applies in all > cases. And I have a particular reader whose done just that, it > seems. Which is why I suggest it might be appropriate to add some > clarification to section 10.7. Yes, clarification would be good. I'll work that into the current round of revisions. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Re: [Standards] admin->none, what happens to user if in member-only room
On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: > On 22 September 2011 00:46, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: >> >> On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:43 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> > >>> However I would consider it reasonable in a members-only room for >>> removal from the Owners List or the Admins List to result in adding that >>> person to the Members List. >> >> The client could offer you that option, possibly as its default. >> >> But let's talk wire semantics. > > Wire semantics are simple. A members-only room cannot contain someone > with an affiliation of 'none'. Therefore if you set someone's > affiliation to 'none' they must be removed from the room, regardless > of what affiliation they had prior to the 'none' affiliation. > > Peter is correct too, in that it doesn't make much sense to kick an > admin from the room just because they lost their admin rights. But in > this case it's up to the client to do the right thing (make them a > member) instead. So we're agreeing on what we expect from the server… So, back to my concern, I don't think XEP 45 section 10.7 is all that clear in that it doesn't distinguish a move to member affiliation from a move to none, which leads to different actions for member-only rooms. A reader could easily take the example as applies in all cases. And I have a particular reader whose done just that, it seems. Which is why I suggest it might be appropriate to add some clarification to section 10.7. -- Kurt
Re: [Standards] admin->none, what happens to user if in member-only room
On 22 September 2011 00:46, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: > > On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:43 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> However I would consider it reasonable in a members-only room for >> removal from the Owners List or the Admins List to result in adding that >> person to the Members List. > > The client could offer you that option, possibly as its default. > > But let's talk wire semantics. Wire semantics are simple. A members-only room cannot contain someone with an affiliation of 'none'. Therefore if you set someone's affiliation to 'none' they must be removed from the room, regardless of what affiliation they had prior to the 'none' affiliation. Peter is correct too, in that it doesn't make much sense to kick an admin from the room just because they lost their admin rights. But in this case it's up to the client to do the right thing (make them a member) instead. I think your difference is in whether "you" are the user or the client. The user can expect that removing someone from the admin list keeps them in the room, the client can expect that setting an affiliation to 'none' kicks them from the room. Regards, Matthew
Re: [Standards] admin->none, what happens to user if in member-only room
On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:43 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 9/21/11 5:37 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Peter Saint-Andre >> wrote: Personally, I think the occupant which loss admin privs to a member-only room ought to be kicked. Others might think otherwise. >>> >>> Why not transition from admin to mere member? I don't see a reason to >>> kick or ban someone just because they're no longer an admin, even in a >>> members-only room. And in any case it all depends on what the owner does >>> (change affiliation from admin to member or admin to none or admin to >>> outcast). >> >> I think that if you're in a members-only room and you remove someone >> from the admin list, you'd expect all lists to be as they were prior >> to this act, except the admin list to not contain this person. That >> is: I would not expect removing people from the admin list to put them >> into another list. If this *is* what's desired, a user can logically >> remove from admin and add to members. > > In the client I use for room administration (Psi), there's an Owners > List, an Admins List, a Members List, and a Banned List. I assume that > if I add someone to one of the lists, they're no longer on any of the > others. I'd also assume that if I remove someone from a list, they're > not automatically added to another list (i.e., affiliation='none'). There's not a none list. None is the absense of being on any of the other lists. > However I would consider it reasonable in a members-only room for > removal from the Owners List or the Admins List to result in adding that > person to the Members List. The client could offer you that option, possibly as its default. But let's talk wire semantics. > In that regard members-only rooms are somewhat special, I think. > > Peter > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > >
Re: [Standards] admin->none, what happens to user if in member-only room
On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 9/21/11 5:23 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: >> >> On Sep 21, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Alexander Holler wrote: >> >>> Am 21.09.2011 03:03, schrieb Kurt Zeilenga: While XEP 45, Section 9.4 is reasonable clear that loss of membership causes a kick from the room, Section 10.7 is less clear of what happens on loss of admin privs. 10.7 says: If the user is in the room, the service MUST then send updated presence from this individual to all occupants, indicating the loss of administrative privileges by sending a presence element that contains an element qualified by the 'http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user' namespace and containing an child with the 'affiliation' attribute set to a value other than "admin" or "owner" and the 'role' attribute set to an appropriate value given the affiliation level and the room type and then gives an example of showing the user moved to participant. It doesn't detail what actually is 'appropriate'. >>> >>> >>> Table 4 (5.1.2 Default Roles) shows what is appropriate. >> >> Where does this table, or anywhere in that section, does it say what >> actions are triggered due to the affiliation change? >> >> It's not. Loss of admin affiliation is discussed in section 10… but >> without detail required to ensure consistent behavior. > > I've never seen anyone lose their admin privileges, so I don't know how > important it is to have consistent behavior. Because the gov't testers expect consistency between implementations here. And if you don't do what they got written in their procedures, you better have some support in the spec for your behavior else you'll be coding a change. > >> Personally, I think the occupant which loss admin privs to a >> member-only room ought to be kicked. Others might think otherwise. > > Why not transition from admin to mere member? The owner could have requested that the admin be moved to member and hence leaving the user as a participant. But the owner changed the affiliation to 'none'. Why would you leave anyone moved to 'none' in the member-only room? > I don't see a reason to > kick or ban someone just because they're no longer an admin, even in a > members-only room. Then don't move them to 'none'. Move them to member. > And in any case it all depends on what the owner does > (change affiliation from admin to member or admin to none or admin to > outcast). Right. The question is what should happen if the owner moved the user from admin to none, not whether the owner should have moved the user to member instead. -- Kurt > > Peter > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > >
Re: [Standards] admin->none, what happens to user if in member-only room
On 9/21/11 5:37 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Peter Saint-Andre > wrote: >>> Personally, I think the occupant which loss admin privs to a >>> member-only room ought to be kicked. Others might think otherwise. >> >> Why not transition from admin to mere member? I don't see a reason to >> kick or ban someone just because they're no longer an admin, even in a >> members-only room. And in any case it all depends on what the owner does >> (change affiliation from admin to member or admin to none or admin to >> outcast). > > I think that if you're in a members-only room and you remove someone > from the admin list, you'd expect all lists to be as they were prior > to this act, except the admin list to not contain this person. That > is: I would not expect removing people from the admin list to put them > into another list. If this *is* what's desired, a user can logically > remove from admin and add to members. In the client I use for room administration (Psi), there's an Owners List, an Admins List, a Members List, and a Banned List. I assume that if I add someone to one of the lists, they're no longer on any of the others. I'd also assume that if I remove someone from a list, they're not automatically added to another list (i.e., affiliation='none'). However I would consider it reasonable in a members-only room for removal from the Owners List or the Admins List to result in adding that person to the Members List. In that regard members-only rooms are somewhat special, I think. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Re: [Standards] admin->none, what happens to user if in member-only room
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Personally, I think the occupant which loss admin privs to a >> member-only room ought to be kicked. Others might think otherwise. > > Why not transition from admin to mere member? I don't see a reason to > kick or ban someone just because they're no longer an admin, even in a > members-only room. And in any case it all depends on what the owner does > (change affiliation from admin to member or admin to none or admin to > outcast). I think that if you're in a members-only room and you remove someone from the admin list, you'd expect all lists to be as they were prior to this act, except the admin list to not contain this person. That is: I would not expect removing people from the admin list to put them into another list. If this *is* what's desired, a user can logically remove from admin and add to members. /K
Re: [Standards] admin->none, what happens to user if in member-only room
On 9/21/11 5:23 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: > > On Sep 21, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Alexander Holler wrote: > >> Am 21.09.2011 03:03, schrieb Kurt Zeilenga: >>> While XEP 45, Section 9.4 is reasonable clear that loss of >>> membership causes a kick from the room, Section 10.7 is less >>> clear of what happens on loss of admin privs. >>> >>> 10.7 says: If the user is in the room, the service MUST then send >>> updated presence from this individual to all occupants, >>> indicating the loss of administrative privileges by sending a >>> presence element that contains an element qualified by the >>> 'http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user' namespace and containing >>> an child with the 'affiliation' attribute set to a value >>> other than "admin" or "owner" and the 'role' attribute set to an >>> appropriate value given the affiliation level and the room type >>> >>> and then gives an example of showing the user moved to >>> participant. >>> >>> It doesn't detail what actually is 'appropriate'. >> >> >> Table 4 (5.1.2 Default Roles) shows what is appropriate. > > Where does this table, or anywhere in that section, does it say what > actions are triggered due to the affiliation change? > > It's not. Loss of admin affiliation is discussed in section 10… but > without detail required to ensure consistent behavior. I've never seen anyone lose their admin privileges, so I don't know how important it is to have consistent behavior. > Personally, I think the occupant which loss admin privs to a > member-only room ought to be kicked. Others might think otherwise. Why not transition from admin to mere member? I don't see a reason to kick or ban someone just because they're no longer an admin, even in a members-only room. And in any case it all depends on what the owner does (change affiliation from admin to member or admin to none or admin to outcast). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Re: [Standards] admin->none, what happens to user if in member-only room
On Sep 21, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Alexander Holler wrote: > Am 21.09.2011 03:03, schrieb Kurt Zeilenga: >> While XEP 45, Section 9.4 is reasonable clear that loss of membership causes >> a kick from the room, Section 10.7 is less clear of what happens on loss of >> admin privs. >> >> 10.7 says: >> If the user is in the room, the service MUST then send updated presence >> from this individual to all occupants, indicating the loss of administrative >> privileges by sending a presence element that contains an element >> qualified by the 'http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user' namespace and >> containing an child with the 'affiliation' attribute set to a value >> other than "admin" or "owner" and the 'role' attribute set to an appropriate >> value given the affiliation level and the room type >> >> and then gives an example of showing the user moved to participant. >> >> It doesn't detail what actually is 'appropriate'. > > > Table 4 (5.1.2 Default Roles) shows what is appropriate. Where does this table, or anywhere in that section, does it say what actions are triggered due to the affiliation change? It's not. Loss of admin affiliation is discussed in section 10… but without detail required to ensure consistent behavior. Personally, I think the occupant which loss admin privs to a member-only room ought to be kicked. Others might think otherwise. -- Kurt
Re: [Standards] admin->none, what happens to user if in member-only room
Am 21.09.2011 03:03, schrieb Kurt Zeilenga: While XEP 45, Section 9.4 is reasonable clear that loss of membership causes a kick from the room, Section 10.7 is less clear of what happens on loss of admin privs. 10.7 says: If the user is in the room, the service MUST then send updated presence from this individual to all occupants, indicating the loss of administrative privileges by sending a presence element that contains an element qualified by the 'http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user' namespace and containing an child with the 'affiliation' attribute set to a value other than "admin" or "owner" and the 'role' attribute set to an appropriate value given the affiliation level and the room type and then gives an example of showing the user moved to participant. It doesn't detail what actually is 'appropriate'. Table 4 (5.1.2 Default Roles) shows what is appropriate. Regards, Alexander
