On 8/19/11 1:02 PM, Alexander Holler wrote: > Am 18.08.2011 23:00, schrieb Alexander Holler: >> Am 18.08.2011 15:43, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre: >>> I've completed a round of revisions to XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) in an >>> effort to incorporate developer feedback I've received since the last >>> version 3 years ago. The XMPP Council would like to vote on these >>> revisions before the end of September or possibly early October, so it >>> would be great if folks could check the diff in the next few weeks: >>> >>> http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0045/diff/1.24/vs/1.25rc5 >>> >>> A rendered version is here: >>> >>> http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0045-1.25.html >> >> Thanks for the update. I will try to read (again) as much as I can. > > Here is my current list of open questions: > > - Which nicks are reserved? (owner, admins, members) > - Owners, admins ormembers without reserved nicks?
Nicks are reserved based on registering with the room. Nicks of owners and admins are not reserved automatically, unless an implementation decides that is a nice feature. > - What happens with reserved nicks when someone changes his nick? Does > the reserved nick changes too? Implementation specific. > I don't know why fully-anonymous rooms got removed, according tothe > history this was done 2002. But I think there are good reasons for rooms > where even moderators or owners shouldn't be able to see real JIDs. E.g. > thinking about countries where people have to fear speaking freely > without beeing anonymous. There might be possibilities to discover real > JIDs when access to the machine running the service is available, but if > someone (a owner or moderator) doesn't have such, he can't be get under > pressure to reveal real JIDs because he just can't see them. > > So here are my 2ยข for in regard to fully-anonymous rooms: > > - muc_fullyanonymous in service discovery is missing, > - make a note about problems with fully-anonymous rooms, e.g how to ban > someone without revealing his jid in the list of outcasts, how to remove > an outcast if the outcast was done based on the nick only, possible > solution: outcasts with a timeout). Besides removing outcasts, I think > anything else could be handled through the use of nicks only. > > To not having the need to define how fully-anonymous rooms are handled, > maybe the xep could just list the value 'none' for whois (no change > needed), add muc_fullyanonymous to service discovery and say everything > else in regard to how fully-anonymous rooms are handled (if supported) > is implementation specific. Feel free to write and submit a proposal for fully anonymous rooms. IMHO this is out of scope for XEP-0045, and has been since 2002. We are trying to *not* add new features to XEP-0045 at this point, and in fact to remove features if they are not used. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
