[Standards-JIG] RE: Standards-JIG] MUC Invitations, Jingle Relays, and Big Problems
jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Tue Nov 7 07:58:43 UTC 2006
Peter, this is interesting. I am not certain it will answer all cases
The original reason for which Robert (Darco) bought up the subject was
initially related to GTalk filtering out traffic not originating from one of
your buddies (he called it "paranoid" filtering ;)
He also pointed out that more and more features in XMPP are now
"intermediated", for example MUC invites are sent to a user by the room, and
PubSub also has case where notifications come from the service.
So his question was wider than just 1-to-1 user's conversation in an instant
messaging application. You'll certainly agree that a user cannot have
unknown MUC rooms in its roster, nor all topics of a PubSub application...
In the end it brings several questions:
- How should we approach this issue for non IM applications?
- If we use it for IM, isn't it going to conflict with other XEPs, such as
- How would we deal with "intermediated" features such as MUC, PubSub and
most probably Jingle.
What do you think?
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:30:56 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org>
Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] MUC Invitations, Jingle Relays, and Big
To: Jabber protocol discussion list <standards-jig at jabber.org>
Message-ID: <454FC5B0.1090001 at jabber.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> Dne patek 03 listopad 2006 19:50 Robert B Quattlebaum, Jr. napsal(a):
>> On Nov 3, 2006, at 2:13 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> On 3 Nov 2006, at 00:48, Robert B Quattlebaum, Jr. wrote:
>>>> I don't see this problem getting betterit is going to get worse.
>>>> Filtering communications from unknown JID's is a perfectly
>>>> reasonable thing to do, and I think that we should start making
>>>> our protocols aware of this situation and stop punishing users for
>>>> Any ideas on how to handle this?
>>> Frankly, I think we should strongly encourage servers to not do this.
>> My biggest problem is that google talk makes this mandatory.
> In my opinion as an user, it is not reasonable at all... There are many
> who don't want to add more contacts to rosters just for one-time chat...
> For example I don't send subscription request to people I know to not need
> presence and I just want something of them...
IMHO it would be a good practice for users who are in a 1-to-1 chat (but
not in each other's rosters) to send directed presence. Been meaning to
write that up somewhere....
More information about the Standards