* Florian Schmaus <[email protected]> [2017-03-23 10:11]: > That does work if the name of the channel can be random (nameless). But > I believe that there will be use cases where the name of the channel > needs to be fixed.
Yes, there are use cases where a fixed channel name is needed. But do you really want to end up in a situation where a race condition decides on who will become the owner of that channel, and where you'll accidentally expose your full JID to a third party by join-or-creating some milliseconds too late? > For PubSub/PEP this would be OMEMO, GeoLoc, etc., (although the > situation here is not so bad, because the nodes don't get deleted usually). Sorry, I can't follow you. What's the relevance of the current discussion to OMEMO etc? > But yeah, § 6.5.3 could be sufficient in most cases. However, I still > feel like having an optional atomic join-or-maybe-create operation would > be nice to have. I have a contrary opinion. Join-or-maybe-create is the wrong solution for the two MIX use cases I see, and it would make implementors take nasty shortcuts. - Named public long-lived MIXes: you want to either be the owner of it or have the creation fail. - Anon/private MIXes: just use §6.5.3 Georg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
