> On 4-Oct-2017, at 05:42, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the write-up. I agree this is a problem worth solving.
>
> I think (3) seems like it has nice properties in terms of a single
> round-trip, but I think (2) is the preferable option in practice. It’s simple
> to implement for everyone (3 is quite complex), and I think also makes it
> easier if one wants to write a MIX proxy (so allowing users to join MUCs as
> if they were MIXs, and have the server do all the work for them - which would
> be a nice thing, I think).
> As it’s a sticking plaster, and we’re trying to fix things properly, going
> with a sticking plaster iq seems ok to me (as is more likely to get the
> needed wide deployment).
Agreed. I strongly prefer (2), since it’s simple to implement, has
obvious semantics, and allows for reuse of the existing spec in existing
clients with very small changes.
-bjc_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
