Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > One benefit of Dave's way is that it meshes with the original reason for > invites to go through the room (e.g., permissions check to determine > that the invitor is allowed to send invitations, room adds invitee to > the member list if the room is members-only). So I'd prefer Dave's > approach. But I haven't had a chance to look at RFC 4467 yet...
I don't see the sense in requiring the permissions check. I could just as easily send a standard message saying "hey, you should join [EMAIL PROTECTED]; the password is 'secret'" -- the muc invites protocol is just a convenience. On the members list thing, does that mean that inviting someone to a members-only room makes them a member? That seems weird+bad. I would expect it to only allow them access as long as the token is valid, not grant them permanent access. But yeah, I don't see any problems with Dave's method at all; on the contrary, I pointed out where my method does *not* have an advantage. -Alex Mauer "hawke"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
