* Florian Schmaus <f...@geekplace.eu> [2018-04-12 09:28]: > A different approach would be to define an am-I-still-here IQ send to > the bare MUC address:
Yes, this was one of my initial proposals in the October mail. > Advantages I see here is > - The MUC does not intercept IQs This is not quite true. A MUC must intercept all IQs and redirect them to some random client (or the bare JID) of the respective participant anyway. > - Hence it is not so easy to produce an implementation which would > leak MUC nicknames I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. > - We sidestep the "IQ to MUC participant" problematic > - We do not add additional semantic to xep199 pings the main disadvantage is: we need to give MUCs a feature indicating that they support it. Clients need to query for that feature (additional round-trip), and implement the self-ping dance anyway for MUCs that don't. So while I agree with you that it's a cleaner approach, it adds even more complexity to the clients, at least in the "short term" until all MUC implementations have improved and been rolled out on the servers out there. > I think I would slightly favour this approach. It surely is the better long-term approach, but as there seems to be general consensus that MUC can't be fixed anyway and that MIX is Our Savior, I'd like to go on with the self-ping hack. I'm convinced that it provides the same client-side functionality at the same overhead (minus one disco#info and minus obtaining your own nickname, but you should know that anyway). Georg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
