Re: MUC Occupancy and forwarding

Stephen Paul Weber <[email protected]> Wed, 6 May 2026 13:14:20 -0500

Newsgroups	gmane.network.jabber.standards-jig
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

>Option 1: The occupant jid forwards nothing, but has a way of requesting a
>contact jid.
>
>Option 2: The occupant jid forwards everything to the user's bare jid, and
>their server "deals" with it.

Option 2 seems pretty ok to me. As you said forwarding of iq to fulljid has 
never had a way of actually working anyway -- it goes to a "random" fulljid 
of the ones joined. So unless we are going to have sub-addressing (and I 
think there are good reasons we don't want to if we want to keep semi-anon) 
I think going to the barejid as the default is all we really can do.

However I don't think we need to write this in a way that makes it 
impossible for a compliant implementation to make another choice. For 
example a MUC might intercept BoB requests, know which fulljid sent that 
originall, and forward there. Or other such advanced case-by-case things.  
But I think barejid is the right default.

>I appreciate the simplicity of Option 1, but I think it's too simple - even
>for Private Messages I'd need to reveal my identity. If I'm in a sensitive
>room (say a healthcare related one) I might really want (or need) PMs but
>not be willing to reveal my identity.

I've long felt that full bidirectional PMs in a semi-anon MUC are more 
trouble than they're worth, but we do need some way to get eg a chat request 
through which I think would likely use message stanzas.

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

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)