[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Remko Tronçon wrote:
>>>> I notice that the security considerations here violate the requirement
>>>> in RFC 3920 to reply to IQs of type get or set. We need to figure that
>>>> out.
>>>
>>> Let the server reply to IQs on behalf of the client, as it would when
>>> it were offline?
>>
>> Yes, I realized that in the middle of the night. :-) If the client is 
>> in invisible mode, the server replies to IQ set or get on the client's 
>> behalf. But I guess maybe it needs to make an exception if the client 
>> sent directed presence? E.g., Jingle uses all IQs and it wouldn't work 
>> if you were in invisible mode. Hmmm.
> 
> When you send directed presence, you're no longer invisible (to that 
> contact), so IQs should be passed to client normally.

Yes, I think so.

> BTW: Server should answer to IQ if I am invisible, but it should 
> probably let IQ results to reach me.

Right, the rule in XEP-0186 right now applies only to incoming IQ-get or 
IQ-set.

> One more thing about being invisible: Should I be able to see my other 
> resource which is invisible? I generally don't use invisibility, so I 
> don't know how current implementations (of old presence-invisible or of 
> privacy lists) handle this, but it might be good to be able to see 
> invisible resources.

I see no reason why not.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
XMPP Standards Foundation
http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070201/5b1f68de/smime.bin