> -Original Message-
> From: Standards On Behalf Of Kevin Smith
> Sent: 01 June 2018 14:37
> To: XMPP Standards
> Subject: Re: [Standards] MIX Addressing
>
> On 1 Jun 2018, at 11:37, Steve Kille wrote:
> > 1. Use variant 2 for messages.Messages will come from bare JID of
> >
On 01.06.2018 18:27, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2018, at 17:19, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>>
>> On 01.06.2018 17:57, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> On 1 Jun 2018, at 16:47, Florian Schmaus wrote:
On 31.05.2018 13:45, Kevin Smith wrote:
> We’ve had some discussions recently about whether
On 1 Jun 2018, at 17:19, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>
> On 01.06.2018 17:57, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> On 1 Jun 2018, at 16:47, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>>>
>>> On 31.05.2018 13:45, Kevin Smith wrote:
We’ve had some discussions recently about whether presence should come
from the channel’s
On 1 June 2018 at 17:19, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 01.06.2018 17:57, Kevin Smith wrote:
> > On 1 Jun 2018, at 16:47, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> >>
> >> On 31.05.2018 13:45, Kevin Smith wrote:
> >>> We’ve had some discussions recently about whether presence should come
> from the channel’s JID,
On 01.06.2018 17:57, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2018, at 16:47, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>>
>> On 31.05.2018 13:45, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> We’ve had some discussions recently about whether presence should come from
>>> the channel’s JID, the user’s proxy JID, or be encoded in pubsub. Similarly
On 1 Jun 2018, at 16:47, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>
> On 31.05.2018 13:45, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> We’ve had some discussions recently about whether presence should come from
>> the channel’s JID, the user’s proxy JID, or be encoded in pubsub. Similarly
>> whether messages should be coming from
On 31.05.2018 13:45, Kevin Smith wrote:
> We’ve had some discussions recently about whether presence should come from
> the channel’s JID, the user’s proxy JID, or be encoded in pubsub. Similarly
> whether messages should be coming from the channel’s JID or the user’s proxy
> JID. I think the
On 1 Jun 2018, at 11:37, Steve Kille wrote:
> 1. Use variant 2 for messages.Messages will come from bare JID of
> channel, with resource being stable ID indicating the sender. Sender JID
> and Nick in the message.This works right for MAM, and I think it is
> reasonably natural for
I'd really much rather use the same identifier for both messages and
presence if at all possible.
On 1 June 2018 at 11:37, Steve Kille wrote:
> A proposal:
>
>
> 1. Use variant 2 for messages.Messages will come from bare JID of
> channel, with resource being stable ID indicating the
A proposal:
1. Use variant 2 for messages.Messages will come from bare JID of channel,
with resource being stable ID indicating the sender. Sender JID and Nick in
the message.This works right for MAM, and I think it is reasonably natural
for messages to always come from the channel
> On 1 Jun 2018, at 09:36, Jonas Wielicki wrote:
>
> On Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 09:21:45 CEST Kevin Smith wrote:
>> On 31 May 2018, at 20:12, Jonas Wielicki wrote:
>>> On Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2018 13:45:06 CEST Kevin Smith wrote:
We’ve had some discussions recently about whether presence
On 1 Jun 2018, at 09:20, Jonas Wielicki wrote:
>
> On Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 09:29:15 CEST Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> So here’s a straw-man proposal, Variant 3 (because, creating many variants
>>> is what we’re good at!):
>>>
>>> An occupant is identified by an occupant-identifier. The occupant JID
On Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 09:21:45 CEST Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 31 May 2018, at 20:12, Jonas Wielicki wrote:
> > On Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2018 13:45:06 CEST Kevin Smith wrote:
> >> We’ve had some discussions recently about whether presence should come
> >> from
> >> the channel’s JID, the user’s
On Freitag, 1. Juni 2018 09:29:15 CEST Kevin Smith wrote:
> > So here’s a straw-man proposal, Variant 3 (because, creating many variants
> > is what we’re good at!):
> >
> > An occupant is identified by an occupant-identifier. The occupant JID is
> > occupant-identifier@mix-service. The channel
> On 31 May 2018, at 21:43, Jonas Wielicki wrote:
>
> On Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2018 13:45:06 CEST Kevin Smith wrote:
>> 1) Stick with proxy JIDs and user%channel@domain[/resource] (or similar),
>> with the resource missed off for bare-JID traffic, where
>> ‘user%channel@domain’ as the proxy JID
On 31 May 2018, at 20:12, Jonas Wielicki wrote:
>
> On Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2018 13:45:06 CEST Kevin Smith wrote:
>> We’ve had some discussions recently about whether presence should come from
>> the channel’s JID, the user’s proxy JID, or be encoded in pubsub. Similarly
>> whether messages
16 matches
Mail list logo
