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

[Justin Karneges]

On Friday 18 May 2007 3:40 pm, Rachel Blackman wrote:
> If we /do/ go that direction, I would think it would be the
> responsibility of the server to normalize IQ error replies to match
> its own format, rather than coming up with one diehard unchanging
> specification for ordering children and tags and whatever else.
> Otherwise, just to be /certain/, a client would have to probe a
> server on connection, discover how the server handles errors, and
> then emulate it.

What I'd like to see are servers that will reject inbound iq packets if the 
other entity does not have your presence.  This would only apply if the 
inbound iq packet is targetting a typical IM account.  Wouldn't this solve a 
ton of privacy problems?

-Justin