[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)
stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Feb 1 17:44:27 UTC 2007
Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Remko Tronçon wrote:
>>>> I notice that the security considerations here violate the requirement
>>>> in RFC 3920 to reply to IQs of type get or set. We need to figure that
>>> Let the server reply to IQs on behalf of the client, as it would when
>>> it were offline?
>> Yes, I realized that in the middle of the night. :-) If the client is
>> in invisible mode, the server replies to IQ set or get on the client's
>> behalf. But I guess maybe it needs to make an exception if the client
>> sent directed presence? E.g., Jingle uses all IQs and it wouldn't work
>> if you were in invisible mode. Hmmm.
> When you send directed presence, you're no longer invisible (to that
> contact), so IQs should be passed to client normally.
Yes, I think so.
> BTW: Server should answer to IQ if I am invisible, but it should
> probably let IQ results to reach me.
Right, the rule in XEP-0186 right now applies only to incoming IQ-get or
> One more thing about being invisible: Should I be able to see my other
> resource which is invisible? I generally don't use invisibility, so I
> don't know how current implementations (of old presence-invisible or of
> privacy lists) handle this, but it might be good to be able to see
> invisible resources.
I see no reason why not.
XMPP Standards Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards