Re: Proposed XMPP Extension: End-to-End Encrypted Contacts Metadata

Goffi <[email protected]> Fri, 20 Feb 2026 16:08:28 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.network.jabber.standards-jig
Message-ID	<6250534.lOV4Wx5bFT@tazar3>

Le mardi 20 janvier 2026, 11:49:09 heure normale d’Europe centrale Goffi a écrit 
:
> Sure, and I did agree with your arguments on group: I plan to update the 
spec 
> to remove the dedicated group node to use the same thing as in roster (I 
just 
> don't do it know so the spec is not changing while council members are 
> checking it).

Actually the situation changed after council discussion. We are now talking of 
not making the e2ee mandatory anymore, in other words, this specs could be 
used to store extended metadata for any contacts, with a dedicated node for 
e2ee version (so the client choose which data must be e2ee and which one can 
be known from the server).

In this condition, I think that the separated group make sense for the 
original reasons I did it:
- use an ID instead of the group name to identify it, so it can be renamed 
without breaking anything based on groups (like access control for instance)
- extra metadata can be added to groups, like description, and probably other 
things in future XEPs


So I would like feedback here, what do people think? Is it better to keep it 
simple and just using a group with a name like we do in roster, or should we 
improve it and have the possibility to add cleanly metadata?

I'm thinking that the latter is the best option now that group can be known by 
server or other services, but I would like to have feedback.

Best,
Goffi

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 488 B)