Thanks Peter, That seems like a sensible change. I have prepared a corresponding modification of the XEP here: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1359
Kind regards, Guus On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 7:05 PM Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > Hallo Guus, > > On 7/5/24 8:49 AM, Guus der Kinderen wrote: > > Hello! > > > > XEP-0045 Section 9.1 defines that: > > - a user cannot be banned by an admin with a lower affiliation. > > - if an admin or owner attempts to ban himself, the service MUST deny > > the request. > > > > Section 9.2, that deals with modifying the ban list of a room > > (potentially applying changes that affect more than one participant) > > does not mention these cases. It stands to reason that similar > > definitions must apply. > > Yes, I think Section 9.2 should at least refer back to the rules already > defined in Section 9.1. > > > To me, this raises the question of dealing with ban list modification > > requests that contain both 'valid' as well as 'invalid' modifications. I > > do not believe that the XEP clearly specifies how to deal with these. I > > would think that the entire request is to be rejected (as opposed to > > only the 'valid' modifications' be applied). Can we add this explicitly > > in the XEP? > > Because I believe there is no easy way to communicate to the sender > which parts of the modification request are valid and which are invalid, > I suggest that none of the requested changes should be applied until the > request is corrected. > > Peter > > >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
