Hi,
I'm not sure if there are use cases where Owners and/or Administrators
can be on the lists without being Participants. In my opinion, these
roles should be subsets. The "Participants" list is the superset, the
"Administrators" list is a subset of "Participants" and "Owners" is a
subset of "Administrators" list.
In that way, it's easy to think that Owners should be Administrators and
Participants. And if it's needed to have always an Owner, it's difficult
to have inconsistencies and weird situations like Ralph says.
Kind regards.
Manuel Rubio.
El 2018-04-25 09:26, Ralph Meijer escribió:
On 2018-04-24 09:09, Steve Kille wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Standards <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ralph
Meijer
Sent: 23 April 2018 21:41
So, does that mean you can create a room in such a way that you lack
full
control over? That doesn't sound optimal, although I like explicit
over
implicit.
[Steve Kille]
I agree that explicit is good. It is also clean if you want to
create a
room without an owner or with owners not yourself.
What happens if you omit the Owners field? Is the default a single
item,
being
the bare JID of the creator?
[Steve Kille]
3.9.11 says: " Bare JIDs with Owner rights as defined in ACL node.
When a
channel is created, the JID creating the channel is configured as an
owner,
unless this attribute is explicitly configured to another value."
This is effectively saying Owner is mandatory. I think that I will
add
text to explicitly say that a channel must have an owner.
Does this make sense?
Section 3.9.1 says two things:
1) Only owners are allowed to modify the channel configuration node.
2) There MUST always be at least one Owner for a Channel. Owners,
Administrators, Participants, and Allowed are optional and do not
need
to be set. Where no owner is explicitly set, it is anticipated that a
server administrator will have owner rights. [..]
I think 1 follows from 2, simply because if you have no owner, there
can be no changes to the Channel afterwards. So I do think that 2)
makes
sense. I'm a bit unsure about the part where it anticipates about
server
administrators, and how that interacts with the MUST in the previous
sentence. If you value explicit over implicit, I'd do away with
this bit of vagueness.
The text for 2 continues with:
“Rights are defined in a strictly hierarchical manner following the
order of this table, so that for example Owners will always have
rights that Administrators have.”
This seems to imply that Administrators and Owners "have the rights of"
Participants. Are they actually in the list of Participants? If so:
- What does it mean to be in the list of Participants (including
Administrators and Owners), if there was no explicit join from that
bare JID?
- Is such an entity just not subscribed to any nodes?
- How do roster modifications work in this case?
- Can an administrator modify this list with a PubSub publish, like
the
Allowed node? The above would also imply that you can add people to
a
channel without using the invite system in 6.1.16.
- Does leaving the room affect these lists?
- If so, what happens when the last Owner leaves the room?
--
ralphm
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
