On Tuesday 12 August 2008 23:01:13 Kevin Smith wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Has any MUC implementation coded in support for the "unique room name > > request" feature described in Section 10.1.4 of XEP-0045? I think this > > feature is unnecessary and (in the interest of simplification) I would > > like to remove it from XEP-0045. > > Without checking, that was in the spec for converting the chat to muc > case. I don't see the harm in leaving it there, but I think it'll come > down to another argument about the impossibility of collisions on a > guid.
There are many places where a UUID may be appropriate, but I don't think this is one of them. You're desiring an unique handle to the MUC service, and the MUC itself is really the authority for that. I'd buy client-asserted hashes if conferencing was some peer-to-peer thing, but MUC is a client/server design. -Justin
