> OK - my concern (and I think Georg's concern too) is that a MIX client can > locate the MIX channel from the MUC interface, but a non-MIX client cannot > locate the MUC from the MIX interface, since it will never understand that - > meaning that the "address of record" for the chatroom will be that of the > MUC service, and not the MIX. [Steve Kille]
I think that this will naturally swap over once most clients do MIX > > That means that retiring the MUC service is going to be very hard, if not > impossible. This seems highly undesirable. [Steve Kille] I'd picture that MUC and MIX services are front ends onto the same thing, so the cost of keeping both is very low > > I have no interest whatsoever in having a *full* MUC service operational on > the same domain as the MIX service. But I would like to explore a legacy > MUC-compatibility service so we can avoid having whole legacy domains > hanging around forever. [Steve Kille] Sounds messy > > This is, as you say, something we can discuss further in Brussels - I just don't > want it to be considered a lost cause from the outset. [Steve Kille] OK! Steve _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
