[Standards-JIG] proto-JEP: Smart Presence Distribution

Jean-Louis Seguineau jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Wed May 17 15:26:01 UTC 2006


Philipp Hancke wrote:
> which is what we do. We only use the roster instead of negotiating a
> list. This assumes that the roster is synchronized between
> the two servers of course.

This 'of course' is the important bit, of course.

> How are you going to negotiate that list without disclosing
> parts of your privacy list to the remote server?

By not including a particular address on the list for presence-out, and
blocking for presence-in, why?

-----Original Message-----
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 16:45:25 +0200
From: Philipp Hancke <fippo at goodadvice.pages.de>
Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] proto-JEP: Smart Presence Distribution
To: Jabber protocol discussion list <standards-jig at jabber.org>
Message-ID: <446B3704.6060705 at goodadvice.pages.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Richard Dobson schrieb:
> Would it not be better to create a protocol that works correctly when 
> privacy lists are in place? And still reduces the bandwidth?
> 
> Something like JEP-0033 but where instead of including all the addresses 
> in each stanza you negotiate a distribution list with the remote server 
> and just send the stanza to that distribution list that in turn 
> distributes the stanza to all the people i.e.
which is what we do. We only use the roster instead of negotiating a
list. This assumes that the roster is synchronized between
the two servers of course.

> <presence from='romeo at montague/inlove' 
> to='s44sdasb4444dedd at multicast.capulet'/>
> 
> which in turn gets distributed to:
> 
> <presence from='romeo at montague/inlove' to='juliet at capulet'/>
> <presence from='romeo at montague/inlove' to='nurse at capulet'/>
> <presence from='romeo at montague/inlove' to='peter at capulet'/>
> <presence from='romeo at montague/inlove' to='sampson at capulet'/>
> <presence from='romeo at montague/inlove' to='gregory at capulet'/>
> 
> Would make it much more "smart".
How are you going to negotiate that list without disclosing
parts of your privacy list to the remote server?

Philipp





More information about the Standards mailing list