[Standards] invisibility

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Tue Aug 28 15:25:56 UTC 2007

On 28 Aug 2007, at 02:49, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Kevin Smith wrote:
>> FWIW, I don't agree with the notion that these random resources are a
>> good thing
> Yes, you have previously expressed that opinion. :)

Sorry, I'm not really trying to harp on, I realise this battle has  
been fought and lost

>> (I'd rather go back to the 'dark days' where we could infer
>> meaning if we wanted to (albeit incorrectly, by rfc)).
> Well it's another SHOULD-path vs. MAY-path discussion, isn't it? We
> recommend that you ask your server to generate the resource identifier
> but say that optionally you can generate one client-side if you want.

I was about to say 'but the server can then assign you something  
unrelated', but then realised that if you don't like the behaviour of  
your server, you can probably go and find another.

>> 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'.
> I'm not yet sure that's the right approach. I mean, it seems quite
> reasonable to me (which is why I keep mentioning it), but Ian Paterson
> has objected that you might want to engage in a stanza session with
> someone but not share presence (e.g., a Jingle call).

Well, there's at least a train of thought that says that it's rather  
difficult to have a voip call with someone without revealing that  
you're there ;) I think it's reasonable enough to send directed  
presence at the start of a chat session, and revoke it afterwards.  
You don't disclose any aditional information that way than you would  
do just by having some stanza exchanging session.


More information about the Standards mailing list