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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Nov 21 21:51:25 UTC 2006


Mridul wrote:

<http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards-jig/2006-November/013100.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.

So I think we should add the 191 implementation note to 16.

> Also, blocking a user through privacy list always did update the
> contact about the availablity change.

Right. Is that currently different between 16 and 191?

> 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'.

I think 191 already specifies that behavior, no? Consider the following
text....

(Section 5.3)

When the user blocks communications with the contact, the user's server
MUST send unavailable presence information to the contact (but only if
the contact is allowed to receive presence notifications from the user
in accordance with the rules defined in RFC 3921).

(Section 5.4)

When the user unblocks communications with the contact, the user's
server MUST send the user's current presence information to the contact
(but only if the contact is allowed to receive presence notifications
from the user in accordance with the rules defined in RFC 3921).

> 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.

Right. It's OK for blocking to be different from privacy lists in some
ways, because it is "simple" and doesn't provide the same level of
flexibility (but also that reduces the complexity).

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20061121/e95ee004/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list