[Standards] XEP-0045: direct invitations

Ian Paterson ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Fri Jul 20 08:04:11 UTC 2007

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Michal 'vorner' Vaner wrote:
>> So just one last question - how does a client know, when to send direct
>> or usual presence? 
>> Sends both?
> Perhaps. Inviting people to rooms happens infrequently enough that it's
> not a bandwidth issue. But it may be confusing for the receiving client
> to get two invitations. Then do we need some logic for checking
> duplicate invitations? Ick.

This is definitely "Ick". But the other options (Aunt Tillie decides or 
hardcode @gmail.com) are even worse.

> I understand why Google Talk has this policy, so I'm not going to argue
> them out of it. But it does introduce complications.

*Maybe* we need to consider addressing the valid reasons that Google 
Talk feels it needs this policy, rather than handling the symptoms of 
the policy? Can we solve the real problem? i.e. can we create enough 
anti-spim protocols and/or infrastructure to make Google (and everyone 
else) confident enough to relax this policy?

- Ian

More information about the Standards mailing list