[Standards-JIG] LAST CALL: XEP-0191 (Simple CommunicationsBlocking)
mridul at sun.com
Fri Oct 13 17:35:05 UTC 2006
Just one query inline.
Chris Mullins wrote:
> 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
> 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/>.
Or unavailable ?
If contact cannot reach user , then it might be ok to send unavailable ?
Also , since blocking is at a per session basis , it might be useful to
clarify that while responding to a presence from a contact , all the
JID's (different resources) of the user which have blocked the contact
MUST NOT be listed in the response ...
Just a thought.
The caveat here is that , the presence probe will return a bunch of
jid's as online - but if the highest priority resource of the user is
blocking the contact , a message to the bare jid of user from contact
will get dropped/processed as offline : which means there is a
difference of behaviour.
Leads to contact determining blocking - is this ok ? I mean , is it ok
for a contact to determine through some way that user has blocked him ?
My feeling is , this should not be possible.
>> 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.
This would be conflicting behaviour with offline user - and so the
difference can be used to detect blocking.
>> 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.
The rules of what can and cant be blocked is not clear - which is what
lead to this question.
More information about the Standards