Re: [Standards] Presence Handling

Hi, I think presence isn't important to have the real JID. If you know the real JID for a participant you can subscribe to its real JID to receive the presence directly from the user instead of both MIX and User. The point is the tag "" inside of the message. The way to add or use real JIDs

Re: [Standards] MIX Proxy Jids are People Too

On 24 May 2018 at 17:31, Kevin Smith wrote: > On 24 May 2018, at 16:52, Dave Cridland wrote: > > > > So the crux of my discussions about MIX proxy jids and stanza types with > Steve is that, as much as possible, messages should be carried in message >

Re: [Standards] MIX Proxy Jids are People Too

On 24 May 2018, at 16:52, Dave Cridland wrote: > > So the crux of my discussions about MIX proxy jids and stanza types with > Steve is that, as much as possible, messages should be carried in message > stanzas that behave normally, and presence should be carried in presence

Re: [Standards] Presence Handling

Dave, That would also be problematic, since entities would then need to process presence rather differently, even more so than they do for MUC now. I was thinking simply: [Steve Kille] So what value is the proxy JID giving, given that the data

[Standards] MIX Proxy Jids are People Too

So the crux of my discussions about MIX proxy jids and stanza types with Steve is that, as much as possible, messages should be carried in message stanzas that behave normally, and presence should be carried in presence stanzas that also may be treated as much as possible like any other presence

Re: [Standards] Presence Handling

Dave, From: Standards On Behalf Of Dave Cridland Sent: 24 May 2018 16:29 To: XMPP Standards Subject: Re: [Standards] Presence Handling I think that would be awful. If you want additional data to go along with the presence, just

Re: [Standards] Where a MIX message comes from

From: Standards On Behalf Of Dave Cridland Sent: 24 May 2018 16:24 To: XMPP Standards Subject: Re: [Standards] Where a MIX message comes from On 24 May 2018 at 16:10, Steve Kille

Re: [Standards] Presence Handling

On 24 May 2018 at 16:25, Steve Kille wrote: > Manuel, > > > -Original Message- > > From: Manuel Rubio > > Sent: 24 May 2018 15:21 > > To: XMPP Standards > > Cc: Steve Kille > > Subject: Re:

[Standards] Presence Handling

Manuel, > -Original Message- > From: Manuel Rubio > Sent: 24 May 2018 15:21 > To: XMPP Standards > Cc: Steve Kille > Subject: Re: [Standards] MIX and ProxyJIDs > > Hi Steve, > > actually I never say anything about

Re: [Standards] Where a MIX message comes from

On 24 May 2018 at 16:10, Steve Kille wrote: > Dave notes “Personally, I dislike the messages coming from the MIX > channel's bare jid - that's inconsistent with how presence works (or, > indeed, messages work normally). I'd rather they came from the full proxy > jid.” > >

[Standards] Where a MIX message comes from

Dave notes “Personally, I dislike the messages coming from the MIX channel's bare jid - that's inconsistent with how presence works (or, indeed, messages work normally). I'd rather they came from the full proxy jid.” I agree that there would be an elegance in doing this, and it would avoid need

Re: [Standards] MIX and ProxyJIDs

From: Standards On Behalf Of Manuel Rubio Sent: 24 May 2018 15:38 To: XMPP Standards Subject: Re: [Standards] MIX and ProxyJIDs Hi, El 2018-05-24 16:24, Dave Cridland escribió: always contains the real jid, if present. always

Re: [Standards] MIX and ProxyJIDs

Hi, El 2018-05-24 16:24, Dave Cridland escribió: > always contains the real jid, if present. > always contains the proxy jid, but is only present if the real > jid is not. > > That seems to be what you're asking for, isn't it? Yes! that works for me. Thanks. Manuel Rubio.

Re: [Standards] MIX and ProxyJIDs

On 24 May 2018 at 14:50, Manuel Rubio wrote: > Hi, > > I know that from MUC and probably even before the privacy for the user is > a priority and it's compulsory to use Proxy-JIDs in some way. But, in my > use case we have a closed system and all of the users know to the

Re: [Standards] MIX and ProxyJIDs

Hi Steve, actually I never say anything about presence, we are not using presence at all. I'm talking about the messages and the "mix" tag inside. Anyway, about presence I can see this in the MIX-PRESENCE XEP regarding the information inside of the pubsub#event you can receive:

Re: [Standards] MIX and ProxyJIDs

Manuel, The problem here is not messages or privacy, but how to identify a user in presence. The hack that MUC uses to identify they user by putting the sender's nick in the resource is something we REALLY want to avoid in MIX. Presence has to come from the MIX domain, so you cannot use the

[Standards] MIX and ProxyJIDs

Hi, I know that from MUC and probably even before the privacy for the user is a priority and it's compulsory to use Proxy-JIDs in some way. But, in my use case we have a closed system and all of the users know to the others. Even if the server is opened to others, the private groups only

Re: [Standards] Table to clarify MIX optional/mandatory

Change made and PR pushed.I'm sharing the new table, as I think it might be interesting to the list Steve The following table shows which of these specification is mandatory or optional for a MIX server, a server supporting MIX users, a general purpose end user client, and a

[Standards] Table to clarify MIX optional/mandatory

Jonas, Table seems like a good idea. I will add this. I have a PR outstanding (couple of edits that Martin Borgert kindly pointed out).Would you like to incorporate this, or shall I do the table edit so that it gets included in the current PR? Steve > -Original Message- >

Re: [Standards] Taking a Machete to MIX

On Montag, 21. Mai 2018 18:06:30 CEST Tedd Sterr wrote: > My point is that it's difficult to tell what's mandatory and what's > optional, and so it's still going to require combing through all eight > documents first to find out what's necessary and second to decide what's > desirable. I’ve heard