[Standards] [Fwd: [Council] meeting minutes, 2007-05-16]

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
> 
> About 199 handling of IQ's from proposal and log.
> 
> 
> That is a problem we are hitting time and again - different specs seem 
> to be doing different things regarding iq responses for requests which 
> they dont want to handle.
> 
> The response for an entity which does not exist, that is not available, 
> which has blocked sender, which does not support that service (does not 
> understand request/namespace), which does not want to respond so as to 
> avoid privacy leaks - for different set of usecases, each of these would 
> result in a different error code back.
> So, careful monitoring of responses can actually be used to leak 
> presence of a user (assuming he uses a well known resource and not 
> random resource).
> 
> Which ever way we handle it - I am not at all comfortable with 
> server/component/client ignoring iq packets and not responding to them.
> It would be better if we fix this and get the client to respond back to 
> sender appropriately such that there is no presence leak and yet sender 
> does not know if the server/client is responding back with an error.

How can a client respond without revealing its resource? Does it tell 
its server "please send back service-unavailable from my bare JID"?

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/20070517/6f87eea8/smime-0001.bin