Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Direct MUC Invitations

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Pavel Simerda wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:27:22 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Pavel Simerda wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:18:43 -0500
XMPP Extensions Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/direct-invitations.html

Hmm, good idea, this simple direct invitation protocol, it makes
sense to send invitation to the people I invite.

Well that's what we had in the old days ("jabber:x:conference"), but then we made something fancier in XEP-0045. Fancier isn't always

better.

Just a sidenote, couldn't "venue" be replaced with something more
specific and well known in the XMPP community (e.g. "conference").
It might also come first in the example, as it's the only important
(and REQUIRED) element.

Sure, <conference> is fine with me.

Also, more about authorization and relation to other XEPs would be
nice. Passwords are IMO not a good *default* authorization technique
for MUC rooms.

I agree. But that's something we should define in XEP-0045 -- or even deprecate password-only rooms in favor of members-only rooms.

It seems MUC authorization was removed from [xep 0235]. Isn't now
the time to find a better place for it?

Maybe. I'm not sure how useful MUC authorization is.

A members-only room is an authorized MUC room - the list of members
becomes the list of authorized entities.

But then what is an invitation for? You have to make someone a member
and send him an invitation message. But for this, you have to be able
to add members.

Peter

I don't think the concept of an invitation-only room makes much sense, especially because we don't have ways of delivering secure invitations (right now invitations are more social interactions, not technical interactions, and I think we might want to leave it that way).

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature