[Standards] invisibility

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Aug 28 15:32:16 UTC 2007


Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2007, at 02:49, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Kevin Smith wrote: 
>>> 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.

Agreed.

I will formulate some proposed text along these lines for rfc3921bis,
i.e., both for "we suggest that you share presence for a stanza session
with an unknown person" and for "the server should answer on behalf of
IQs to the full JID if you're not sharing presence". Then we'll run it
up the flagpole and see who salutes. :)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070828/8bdae5de/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list