[Standards-JIG] LAST CALL: XEP-0191 (Simple CommunicationsBlocking)
chris.mullins at coversant.net
Fri Oct 13 16:28:00 UTC 2006
> 1) If user blocks a contact , is the server expected to
> send an unavailable presence on behalf of the user if contact is :
> a) either in the roster.
> b) had received a directed presence earlier though not in roster.
That's probably a good idea. Otherwise you'll go on thinking I'm online
Also, when I do go offline, my server will be forbidden from sending you
Unavailable presence, so I'll be forever "Available" to you.
> 2) How is server expected to respond to presence probe's in case 1 is
> not true.
I would think, "No Response" or <service unavailable/>.
> 3) Does blocking imply (hard) invisibility ?
Yes, I think. And in the classic sense: I can't even send you a message
if I'm invisible, as doing so is forbidden by my server.
> 4) How are amp (and other ?) message handling
> extensions to be evaluated in case contact sends
> user a message - as though user is offline ?
The message is rejected by the server, not stored offline, and the
originating user receives an error.
> 5) Is block list evaluation restricted to users ? Or
> can this include any jid (including component's) ?
> Full jids (with resource) or only bare jids ?
I would like to see this include component/server JIDs ("server") and
bare JID's ("user at server") and explicitly forbid full JIDs
("user at server/resource").
I know Peter's take is that this should be applicable to the same JID
scopes as privacy lists are today. I would really like to see the 'no
full jid' rule put in place though.
More information about the Standards