Should #Conversations_im add stun.conversations.im as a fallback for #XMPP servers missing XEP-0215: External Service Discovery?
I’ve hesitated to add anything resembling "calling home" (no update checker, no metrics).
However, the main goal here wouldn’t be improving A/V call success (though it helps) but making P2P file transfers more reliable. Many servers still lack HTTP Upload, and the refactored Jingle File Transfer would benefit greatly from a fallback STUN server.
- Yes (72%, 63 votes)
- No (27%, 24 votes)
Peter Vágner reshared this.
Mazhe
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •Ch M[ae][iy]e?r 🇪🇺 🖤 🤍
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •wouldn't it be better to give users/ admins a hint?
I understand that you want to give best possible user experience to Conversations, but:
As a admin I am interested to improve my server (or maybe I don't want to use STUN at all?), and as a user I would like to switch to a server that fits my needs. 🤔
Using your infrastructure feels bad, because it allows to keep badly hosted servers without noticing it.
Perhaps give a hint to admins, how he can improve it or how to use your services.
Also from a GDPR view:
Does the user agree to contact a server he did not configure himself?
Benjamin
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •uɐıʇsɐqǝs
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •yes.
But communicate clearly about it.
I still encounter people that say "I don't want to use xmpp, it doesn't work" - when the last time they tried was years ago. Bad Ux seems to create long lasting bad impressions.
Markus 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •ruff
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •ZeroZX
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •If it can be deactivated in the configuration, then I don't see an issue with that. I would appreciate a warning though somewhere, maybe just a Message Toast on both sides that the fallback is used. That would help notice wrong configurations.
It would be great if conversations could verify that stun/turn works completely in addition to that. (Might also be a separate tool).