[Standards] XEP-0115 redux

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 January 2008 12:06 pm, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> Trying to blend in a reduction of iq:version queries is going to lead
>> to a pessimization of the protocol.
> 
> I started to get this impression as well.
> 
> Peter is right that you could have localized client names.  Also consider 
> clients that run on multiple operating systems (caps doesn't currently 
> specify a way to reveal the OS, but if it did then this would trip the hash).  
> Worse (but rightly so), some clients allow customizing or hiding the version 
> information, similar to the way browsers let you muck with the 'user agent' 
> value.  Finally, keep in mind that a client in beta or release-candidate 
> phase may have capabilities that are set in stone, but a name string that 
> isn't set in stone.
> 
> This is enough for me to believe that capabilities and version information are 
> distinct and should be tracked separately.
> 
>> As I undertsand things, the method for doing this with "old-skool"
>> XEP-115 won't work no matter what we do at this point, which at least
>> leaves the path clear for a new method.
>>
>> Would it be reasonable to cache iq:version results against node+ver+v
>> of the XEP-115 if the hash attribute exists? There's no security
>> here, and I would note that it would be possible for malicious
>> clients to poison the iq:version cache, I just can't see any point in
>> doing so.
>>
>> If this is a problem, can we think of another - new - method for
>> solving the use-case?
>>
>> I'm not 100% clear on the drivers for this kind of facility, so I
>> won't mind if people shoot me down. (I usually don't).
> 
> My initial instinct is to add another hash to presence, which is resolved with 
> an iq:version query.  Arguably, a hash might be even longer than client + 
> version + os combined, so maybe just putting iq:version content into presence 
> would be enough.

Right. So caps is *just* disco, and then we define some new caps-like 
protocol to encapsulate the OS+Software+Name+Version information? Or do 
we stick that into entity capabilities using a new hash?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080116/0eba584f/attachment-0001.bin