On Dienstag, 29. Januar 2019 17:33:56 CET Georg Lukas wrote: > Hi, > > two more XEP-0410 issues that were brought up in the MUCs: > > It might make sense to create a *new* additional error condition in the > not-in-MUC error response, so that a client not wanting to implement the > different "ping error that is not an error" matches, and that relies on > the new self-ping-optimization feature, can match more easily on the new > error condition. > > I'm not sure I like that general idea, but if it finds more proponents, > I'd rather make it in a way that allows to bring it into XEP-0045 later. > > https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#enter-errorcodes goes to great > lengths to not introduce new conditions, but it might actually make sense > to have something like > > <not-an-occupant xmlns="http://jabber.org/protocol/muc"/> > > in addition to the already generated condition.
+1. > The second point is the current 0410 not-in-MUC response. I've chosen > <not-acceptable> because it is what I get from the most widely used XMPP > server implementations, and because it is the corrent response for > attempting to send a message or a *PM*: > > https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#privatemessage > > > If the sender is not an occupant of the room in which the intended > > recipient is visiting, the service MUST return a <not-acceptable/> > > error to the sender. > > However, after I was poked w.r.t. the correct condition, I found this > gem in the context of *disco* queries from a non-occupant: > > https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#disco-occupant > > > If a non-occupant attempts to send a disco request to an address of > > the form <room@service/nick>, a MUC service MUST return a > > <bad-request/> error. > > Of course, there is no section on generic IQ requests from a > non-occupant, so we are free to design this in any way we want! \o/ > > It can be consistent with disco requests, or it can be consistent with > messages! Maybe we can even put all three contitions into the <error/>! I don’t have a strong opinion either way. I suggest to use the path of least resistance and go with a condition already used by existing services. In any case, I think this is '45 material. kind regards, Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
