On 10.09.2010 19:31, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Florian Zeitz <[email protected]> wrote: >> [This time from the correct account...] >> >> Hi, >> as discussed in jdev@ today XEP-0045 is slightly underspecified and/or >> different from what people expect in terms of matching JIDs. >> >> 1. Roles: (not discussed in jdev@) >> "Roles are granted, revoked, and maintained based on the occupant's room >> nickname or full JID" >> One can join a room with the same nickname from multiple different >> resources. What happens if different full JIDs have different roles, but >> the same nick is unspecified (AFAICT). I'd expect this to be strictly >> nickname based... > > Makes sense to me at the moment. > >> 2. Affiliations: (discussed in jdev@) >> Affiliations are supposed to be handled by bare JID, however: >> a) Outcasts are an exception from this rule and use the same matching as >> privacy lists. >> b) It's not clear what happens if e.g. a domain is in the list of >> members. Does that mean only the server itself may join the groupchat, >> or are all accounts on the server supposed to be able to join the >> groupchat too. >> It seems people (including me) mostly expect the JID matching rules >> specified for privacy list to apply to all forms of affiliation. In fact >> it seems to be implemented this way in ejabberd. >> My personal use-case is that I'm hosting a MUC for university purposes >> on my own server that should be members only, but all users of the >> university's server should be members. > > I think server-JID means all JIDs on the server are the given > affiliation. I don't see any other way making sense. > Which (just to be clear) is exactly what the usual (privacy list) matching specifies. So, as a sort of push: Is there anyone who actually disagrees with this assessment? Otherwise I'd propose this to be changed in an iteration of XEP-0045 (also taking into account it already is the status-quo in at least ejabberd).
-- Florob
