[Standards-JIG] JEP-126 (Invisibility)

Remko Troncon remko at psi-im.org
Fri Dec 30 11:26:09 UTC 2005


Looking at JEP-126, i'm wondering how practical this is from the  
client implementor's viewpoint. My main problem is that active  
privacy lists as defined in the RFC are to be changed by name only.  
As far as i can tell, this means that if you want to become  
invisible, a client needs to do some complex checking. For the basic  
case, for example, you first would need to check if there is a  
privacy list 'invisible', and see whether this list is what you  
expect it to be (i.e. a list with a global deny on presence-out). If  
it is, change the active list to that. However, if it isn't, what  
then ? Modify the list ? What if this list is in active use ? Make  
the client come up with a new unique name for an invisible list ?  
That looks like an iterative process of trial and error; and what to  
do afterwards, leave the new list on the server ? Wouldn't that give  
a huge pile of lists in the end ?

It would have been trivial if blocking communication could be done in  
a 'volatile' way, for example by setting the active list by value  
(instead of by name), or by having some special type of naming scheme  
for lists that the server removes when they aren't used anymore.


More information about the Standards mailing list