[jdev] Presence leak test suite

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Jul 9 12:59:32 CDT 2008

Kevin Smith wrote:
>> My point is that the server can't just check the suubscription state in the
>> roster. Also it introduces a good argument for my proposed best practice of
>> sharing presence for ad-hoc chats/interactions:
>> http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-05.html#message-chat
> Yes, I've agreed that sharing presence when chatting makes sense for a
> while, so I agree with the best practice. It does seem weird to have
> that the client MUST allow this to be disabled though - currently,
> that section reads that a client is not XMPP compliant (i.e. it breaks
> a MUST in the RFC) if it follows the best practices in the RFC :)

Hmm, am I missing something? The text in section 5.4 of rfc3921bis says:


If a user exchanges messages with a contact but the user does not 
normally share presence with the contact via a presence subscription, it 
is RECOMMENDED for the user's client to send directed presence to the 
contact, subject to user approval (either explicitly for this contact or 
implicitly via a configuration setting). If a client supports this 
feature, it MUST allow the user to disable the feature in order to 
prevent presence sharing with unknown entities.


So presence sharing is RECOMMENDED, and a client MUST allow a (paranoid) 
user to disable the RECOMMENDED practice of presence sharing. I don't 
see an outright contradiction there. A tension, perhaps. :)


-------------- 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/jdev/attachments/20080709/25c118aa/attachment-0002.bin>

More information about the JDev mailing list