I would always prefer stable identifier. If it is OK to 'leak' the real jid I’d prefer to use that. In MIX channels I’d be OK with using the stable id that MIX provides. But semi anon mucs and their unstable nicks are a pain. I don’t want to join as 'daniel' and get notifications about historic mentions of another 'daniel'
Somewhat related; I had the issue in Conversations the other day where someone joined a muc as 'user' and had historic messages show up as sent by him that were really send by another 'user'. I’m really looking forward to having stable ids in MIX. cheers Daniel P.S.: In regards to actually rewording of that XEP and to make it agnostic towards MIX vs MUC it should probably mention that people should prefer 'a stable JID if available' where 'available' includes 'safe to leak' Am Do., 7. März 2019 um 08:47 Uhr schrieb JC Brand <li...@opkode.com>: > > Hi everyone > > In section 3.2 of XEP-0372, the groupchat example includes the real JID of the > participant, instead of their room JID. > > See https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0372.html#usecase_mention > > For anonymous or semi-anonymous rooms this is a privacy leak. > > Is there any particular reason why the room JID is not used, and is there a > use-case where one would want to NOT use the room JID, but instead use the > real > JID of the participant? > > Regards > JC > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
