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

Carlo v. Loesch CvL at mail.symlynX.com
Thu May 18 08:37:24 UTC 2006


Michal vorner Vaner typeth:
| I guess the bigest servers (like jabber.org) which really matter here do
| not have off-hours. Google talk servers probably would not have
| off-hours either.

there are always times of the day where there is less load and traffic
than in other times. we Europeans always use heavy load systems like
friendster or myspace in the morning hours, because then the Americans
are sleeping and the services are real fast.

| You can never forward privacy list to other server. It is one of the
| basic things of privacy list.

you are always only forwarding that part of the privacy list to the other
server, that involves that server. if you do it openly, or the server
figures it out by comparison, doesn't matter. so it is effectively
already happening. we are not making anything unsafer here.

| describing when a presence is sent and when isn't. You can have someone
| in your roster without him even knowing about it. According to the

our proto-JEP hasn't been precise enough on which information to use
from the user's roster. we have added the following new paragraphs:

    For the purpose of presence distribution, the list is equivalent to all correctly subscribed peers to the bare JID of the sender, in this example 'romeo at montague'.

    When the roster information on the receiving side is used for distribution, it MUST be ensured that it is correct, in synch with the sender's and the recipient had no possibility to gain access to presence that was not intended for him.

would you suggest a different, more precise wording?

should we resubmit the current version to the editor, or can we just
put it up on a website ourselves while we are working on it?

| protocol, I can have someone in a roster, to which I send presences
| without him having me in the roster. And so on.

that's a form of spim, so our JEP helps fight spim in this case
by not forwarding presence to a recipient that hasn't agreed on
receiving it. cool, i'll add that to the JEP.




More information about the Standards mailing list