[jdev] MUC implementors poll

[Peter Saint-Andre]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In version 1.17 of JEP-0045 (2004-10-04), the FORM_TYPEs for room
configuration and for user registration requests were modified. This
change was introduced late in the standards process and may not have
been advisable (that's the same day the XMPP RFCs were published,
perhaps I was distracted). I'd like to take a poll of those who have
implemented JEP-0045 (either in a server or in a client). The question
is, which of the following would you prefer:

1. Retain the change made in 1.17, which specifies the following:

   room config: http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#roomconfig
   registration requests: http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#register

2. Revert to the old FORM_TYPEs:

   room config: http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#owner
   registration requests: http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user

Feel free to reply on or off list and I will tabulate the results.

Peter

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] JEP-0045 namespace changes
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 11:57:15 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org>
Reply-To: Jabber protocol discussion list <standards-jig at jabber.org>
To: Jabber protocol discussion list <standards-jig at jabber.org>
References: <8D96EDA0AC04D31197B400A0C96C14800EA301D5 at corp.webb.net>

Constantin Nickonov wrote:
> Does anyone recall why the room configuration namespace change (ref.
> http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0045.html#revs, Version 1.17) was made to
> JEP-0045 long after it was an accepted draft. As a result, existing
> implementations are in the unenviable position of choosing to keep the
> original implementation and fall out of compliance with the JEP (and
> thus, other implementations) or making the server-side change and
> leaving existing clients out in the cold.
>
> My recommendation would be to revert to the original namespaces, but I'm
> sure that this would probably cause similar problems for newer
> implementations. Any ideas or suggestions?

I agree that this change was probably unforutunate but I don't remember
why we made it -- perhaps there was a concern about confusion regarding
muc#user and muc#owner but I don't recall.

At this point it seems best to retain the change (MUC service
implementations could look for both the old and the new FORM_TYPEs, be
liberal in what you accept and all that) but I'm not wedded to that.
Perhaps it make sense to poll implementors to see what their preference
is (e.g., I doubt that mu-conference has been brought up to date).

Peter

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD6PHFNF1RSzyt3NURAiCjAJ9DILqRvWlYT/3vOpVm81pQ4Czw+QCcCelh
l/OdZaD2vG0m3qYyNwsNj4k=
=F8Cp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20060207/541061b5/attachment-0002.bin>