Matthew Wild wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Registered with the room or with the service? Do we need to > > differentiate between the two? If you are registered with the room then > > you are a member, whereas nick registration has meaning across the > > service. Compare Section 7.10 of XEP-0045, where you register with the > > room, to registration with the service. > > > > Good question... the problem I see is that all this is very > implementation dependent. ejabberd at least doesn't allow you to > register a nick in a room, and it isn't explicitly specified in the > XEP (which says the server can send a data form). > > If you are a room member, this is visible already anyway, so I am > edging towards registration with the whole service (unless we > implemented both).
Yes I think that makes sense. > > > The reason I believe this is needed is because the lack of it makes nick > > > registration fairly useless in anonymous rooms. If someone can see > > > that a user's nick is registered, they have a certain level of > > > assurance that the next time they see this nick, it is the same > > > person. Without this knowledge it may as well be someone completely > > > different. > > > > > > Currently I don't believe there is any way to tell, which means that > > > even if you register your nick on a service, it provides little > > > benefit (unlike it would on IRC/NickServ). > > > > The only way to tell is by trying to register the nick yourself. And > > that seems rather silly. :) > > > > Ah yes, there is that (a method I have used before, and even > considered adding to HAL as a hacky workaround). HAL knows all... > > I see two approaches: > > > > 1. If someone is registered, the service includes a flag in their > > presence broadcast -- something like the following: > > > > <presence > > from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/thirdwitch' > > to='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/desktop'> > > <x xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user'> > > <item affiliation='member' role='participant'/> > > </x> > > <registered xmlns='urn:xmpp:mucserv'/> > > </presence> > > > > Seems ok... > > > 2. The service enables you to check if someone is registered: > > > > <iq from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/desktop' > > id='check-nick-1' > > to='macbeth.shakespeare.lit' > > type='get'> > > <registered xmlns='urn:xmpp:mucserv'> > > thirdwitch > > </registered> > > </iq> > > > > If the nick is registered, the service returns an IQ-result, otherwise > > it returns an error (<item-not-found/> if the nick is not registered, > > <service-unavailable/> if the protocol is not supported): > > > > <iq from='macbeth.shakespeare.lit' > > id='check-nick-1' > > to='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/desktop' > > type='result'/> > > > > OR > > > > <iq from='macbeth.shakespeare.lit' > > id='check-nick-1' > > to='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/desktop' > > type='error'> > > <error type='cancel'> > > <item-not-found xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'/> > > </error> > > </iq> > > > > > > Also ok... > > I'm wondering which would be more convenient from a client UI perspective. > > A new element in presence is a new overhead, but if you want to know > up-front who is registered, we don't want clients to have to query > each user in every MUC they join. > > In my use case I don't mind querying (I only want to know about people > I interact with) and the same for HAL's use case (checking that the > user is the same person, when he isn't in a position to know their > JID). If we don't include it in presence, clients will query everyone. I think I'd prefer the presence flag. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
