[Standards-JIG] UPDATED: JEP-0191 (Simple Communications Blocking)

Mridul mridul at sun.com
Tue Nov 14 22:38:49 UTC 2006

JEP Editor wrote:
> Version 0.2 of JEP-0191 (Simple Communications Blocking) has been released.
> Abstract: This document specifies an XMPP protocol extension for simple communications blocking.
> Changelog: Added implementation notes regarding polite blocking and filtering of search results; recommended retrieval of block list after authentication; defined protocol flow for unblocking all contacts. (psa)
> CVS Diff: http://www.jabberstudio.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/cvs/jeps/0191/jep-0191.xml?r1=1.1&r2=1.2
> URL: http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0191.html


  If blocking is supposed to be a front end to privacy list, then isn't 
the implementation notes taking it away from this goal ?
Privacy lists never lead to roster changes : which is what the 
implementation notes for 191 talking about.
If blocking could lead to roster change, then it is no longer a frontend 
to privacy list.
Also, blocking a user through privacy list always did update the contact 
about the availablity change.

The way I was thinking of it simple terms was : blocking is to all 
stanzas what privacy lists was to presece-out.
If contact gets (un)blocked through privacy list, change in status would 
get pushed (IF he was seeing user as visible earlier : through directed 
presence or roster/privacy list).
Cant we not mirror that for blocking too ?
If blocked -> send unavailable if contact was seeing user as available, 
and then block.
If unblocked -> send available (if allowed) and then 'normal'.

Just for completeness sake : there is already a difference between 
privacy list and blocking for presence - you could send directed 
presence even when presence-out was disabled in privacy lists : not so 
in blocking.
But this is by design for blocking.


More information about the Standards mailing list