[Standards-JIG] LAST CALL: XEP-0191 (Simple CommunicationsBlocking)

Chris Mullins chris.mullins at coversant.net
Fri Oct 13 16:28:00 UTC 2006


Mridul Wrote:
> 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
forever. 

Also, when I do go offline, my server will be forbidden from sending you
Unavailable presence, so I'll be forever "Available" to you. 

+1

> 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. 

-- 
Chris Mullins



More information about the Standards mailing list