-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Old thread alert, and new venue.
Original reference: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/muc/2012-December/000311.html On 12/19/12 2:50 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > So, when I've been thinking about this, I've generally come to the > conclusion that MUC has a fairly chunky design flaw, which is that > we conflated the addressing, and display, of occupants. > > The "right" way of doing this would be to randomly assign the > resource, and then have a distinct nickname, which might be > non-unique. > > But I have no idea how to get there from where we are. Choose a random resourcepart and use XEP-0172: <presence from='[email protected]/foo' to='[email protected]/2n183bdg36avc64'> <nick xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/nick'>Ishmael</nick> </presence> > I think your suggestion *almost* works for anonymous rooms: > > - Initial presence only lists each nickname once, for us. Maybe we > could list occupants more than once for nick-shares, but that > scares me somewhat. This means you'll only "see" one client through > the MUC. > > - As you've pointed out, it's indistinguishable from a client > changing caps, unless we start to read rather more into the node > than perhaps we should. It all feels a bit heuristic to me. > > I can solve the second problem for anonymous rooms by giving them a > jid; that could either be an in-room style jid or some other shadow > jid on the MUC server. If it's an in-room jid, that allows us to > not only track the different occupants using the same jid, but it > also allows us to address them independently, which seems handy. > It's halfway to the "right" design I outlined above. > > To put it another way, you make the anonymous case work by making > all rooms non-anonymous, but the jid so revealed might itself be > anonymized. > > The first issue needs an extension to solve; I think we need some > additional gunk in the join for clients to indicate they'll be > unfazed by having multiple occupants for the same nickname. Unfazed on the sending side (my own occupant JID), the receiving side (other occupants), or both? > Seems reasonable? Something along those lines, yes. :-) Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRLAadAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pkE8QAJogOPr4rawr/gPca1se3KvR QaIOucgOeMtare7RD8ZH7BycKWOsJXqQWtiVIWJ64YCXKiquUy7iBXQOJtvTfaFO 7GohyTgaFWJwxetsXrPFJxZj7g0GribV/YFb2M0rkHQJR29vgHLMZ/DI8Y0NrZbr S3QvrR7LFenWN0mixnKO+71V+smSTEELzTDbnhzh/RXrMxjOPycoi9LHU1hYFww0 Y/8gQUjktj0GmgdCm3zntRY6vQk+xjlq6GF+iYYG3Q3WYcTIbcYpn1g5nC1qXMTX vNcON9NVvAgFd3rZ38T74XWZNVFGPsC7iwyWBjH4ytRwsA6xjRgOMjyeP6f0AO0/ z6/7+/MH5+oCu67TZT/Sc0eq5QeAKnObBRICI0Gms+46I8DEn3hBQ8nX3cJ5FMhA fYKcceIDvbwPRQp655uj0Ztp/TSpAp4E/+B3IxKvBnxHcdwfQhf+dSAmnynTSkw7 kJ24QxNphCNBPXmFHfME4ecjqMCtDD69eHXJobtrKpOD+dAuY4tSA6z3IzvMrIgF fQD7qKhhes2YTMqHoTfxKSEdU9ZnkXdxFw18BhibgrjxudbUl2yEF6RQ+5hBJJ7l 2JeASudYIrR0rX0hCs4izjpeoweNKuj+O8D5xW1OSMkhRlJ16s4AHnrwxoIxBlX4 tOTEbya3CLe3SOjGrv5r =1PL3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
