XSF Discussion - 2017-10-07

what is the default behavior when a JID choose to quit a MUC

looks like most of the clients are not even waiting for the ACK, which can be quite problematic (what if the JID is still connected ?)

edhelas, can you clarify?

Another one bites the dust. https://mobile.twitter.com/aim/status/916290747850264577

now, all we need is a super-elegant way to get people into the XMPP network

off the top of my head: set up an XMPP domain, deploy an AIM transport, let people log in with $aimidentifier@domain.example, import their roster with the @domain.example suffix.

I am amazed by the twitter thread though

@aim is doing good work there

jonasw to leave a MUC you send a presence unavailable to the MUC, some clients choose to directly say "you're disconnected from the muc"

edhelas, yeah, I mean, what you gonna do anyways?

wait for the ACK :)

sure, but what if you don’t get the ACK

that's what I'm saying

yeah, I mean, what’s a client to do about it anyways?

it can resend unavailable or start ignoring the messages, because the user clearly doesn’t want to be in the MUC anymore.

why would it wait for the ACK for updating the UI if it can handle everything else under the hood without user interaction?

what if I send a leave presence, server don't handle it, then I continue to receive messages and presences from the MUC

resend an unavailable presence on each presence and message from the MUC until it "gets the message" ;-)

just like the TCP stack will send RSTs to each and every unwanted packet.

\o/

(or maybe send an error presence, that’d be okay too, I think)

(or error message, depending on the received thing)

Yeah, send errors until the MUC finally kicks you out.

RST RST RST

Ge0rG, errors or presence unavailable?

jonasw: errors.

mhm

jonasw: you forgot the Emoji conversion plug-in.

context?

jonasw [12:40]: > mhm

Ge0rG, that’s only in pidgin, and I turned it off again because it caused interoperability issues

an XMPP domain shouldn't be identifying PEP identities and features, should it (unlike its entity JIDs)?

I think an XMPP domain should totally be advertising that it supports PEP

Or do you think it only makes sense to ask a particular user account?

I guess PEP is a special one out, because you'd want to find out before you create an account.

that's what https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0163.html#support implies

also, there's no pep feature, or is there?

just an identity

Indeed

and it feels wrong to me for the server to identify itself as a PEP service

(I'm talking about the XEP-0030 kind of service discovery, by the way - not advertising stuff on the website :P )