[Standards] invisibility (was: Re: xep-0199 redundancy)

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Mon Aug 27 16:43:46 UTC 2007

On 27 Aug 2007, at 17:28, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> We had a long long discussion thread about this a few months ago, as a
> result of which we modified rfc3920bis to recommend the use of random
> resource identifiers that are generated by the server, not the client.

FWIW, I don't agree with the notion that these random resources are a  
good thing (I'd rather go back to the 'dark days' where we could  
infer meaning if we wanted to (albeit incorrectly, by rfc)).

I think the solution is simple though; if the server isn't routing  
your presence to someone, it should reply to iqs on your behalf  
saying you're not there. This is consistent with the route people  
have been suggesting recently (and I think I agree with) of 'if you  
want to start an X session with someone not on your roster, send  
directed presence first'.


More information about the Standards mailing list