Ralph,
> -----Original Message----- > From: Standards <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ralph Meijer > Sent: 20 September 2018 08:43 > To: XMPP Standards <[email protected]> > Subject: [Standards] MIX (XEP-0369) channel discovery > > Hi, > > Recently I have been looking at discovery of entities to determine what kind of > thing it is, knowing nothing more than its JID. The starting point is a client that > shows a list of entities, based on past conversations (MAM), ordered by last > interaction. Entities could be regular user accounts, bots, group chat rooms, etc. > > The core idea behind XEP-0030 (Service Discovery) is that given a JID, you can > find out what kind of entity it is, by sending a Disco Info request and getting one > or more identities in return. Additional information like supported > features/protocols, and meta-data as Disco Extension Data Forms (XEP-0128), > can be included there, too. > > Reading XEP-0369, section 6.3, on discovering channel information, I see that it > currently requires the node attribute to be set to 'mix'. From what I understand > this is to allow a particular JID to support both MUC and MIX, and have a way to > request the MIX specific information. [Steve Kille] Yes, this was the rationale (set out in 6.3). > > The problem I have with this, is that it requires prior knowledge of a certain JID > (also) being a MIX channel. So you can't find out the identity (the thing that's > telling you what a JID is) without knowing what the thing is. I do understand this > works if you start out with discovering the MIX service first, but I don't believe > that should be the only entry point. [Steve Kille] Your logic for this extra entry point is spot on. I propose to remove the specification of node=mix, as you suggest. I have checked over, and agree with you that there is no conflicting information. The consequence of this is that: 1. A MIX client may see MUC information. This should not be an issue 2. A MUC client will see new MIX information. Is this going to cause any significant breakage? I was specifically asked to make this node=mix change (I cannot remember by whom, but it was not something that I designed). I could not find any notes or emails. I'd like confirmation from my co-author before making this change. Can anyone else involved in early MIX discussions think back? This was put in for a reason, and I'd prefer not to break something by making this change. > > I don't see the need for explicitly asking for the MIX information (only). XEP- > 0030 and XEP-0128 support returning multiple identities as well as multiple > extension forms. So a Disco Info result, without node, could look like this: > > <iq from='[email protected]' > id='ik3vs715' > to='[email protected]/UUID-c8y/1573' > type='result'> > <query xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info'> > <identity > category='conference' > name='A Dark Cave' > type='mix'/> > <identity > category='conference' > name='A Dark Cave' > type='text'/> > <feature var='urn:xmpp:mix:core:0'/> > <feature var='urn:xmpp:mam:2'/> > <feature var='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc'/> > <feature var='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#stable_id'/> > <feature var='muc_passwordprotected'/> > <feature var='muc_hidden'/> > <feature var='muc_temporary'/> > <feature var='muc_open'/> > <feature var='muc_unmoderated'/> > <feature var='muc_nonanonymous'/> > <x xmlns='jabber:x:data' type='result'> > <field var='FORM_TYPE' type='hidden'> > <value>urn:xmpp:mix:core:0</value> > </field> > <field var='Name'> > <value>Witches Coven</value> > </field> > <field var='Description'> > <value>A location not far from the blasted heath where > the three witches meet</value> > </field> > </x> > <x xmlns='jabber:x:data' type='result'> > <field var='FORM_TYPE' type='hidden'> > <value>http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#roominfo</value> > </field> > <field var='muc#roominfo_description' > label='Description'> > <value>The place for all good witches!</value> > </field> > </x> > </query> > </iq> > > Note that I included the channel info from section 6.5 here. I was surprised to > find we aren't using XEP-0128 disco extensions instead of doing a pubsub items > request here. I /do/ see the value for having the pubsub node as way to get > notifications on changes, so having both would be even better. If you have to do > a Disco Info request anyway, it saves one request. > > Finally, section 12, on Registrar Considerations, doesn't mention the required > registration [1] of the identity conference/mix. Unfortunately one identity can > have at most one extension form, so reusing conference/text is probably not a > good idea. > > [1] https://xmpp.org/registrar/disco-categories.html#conference [Steve Kille] Good catch. Need to put something in registrations section. I agree that conference/text is a bad idea. Does anyone see any issues with conference/mix ? I will edit to reflect this, unless anyone suggests a preferable approach > > -- > ralphm [Steve Kille] Steve _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
