[Standards] [Fwd: [Council] meeting minutes, 2007-05-16]

Mridul Muralidharan mridul at sun.com
Wed May 16 21:16:43 UTC 2007


About 199 handling of IQ's from proposal and log.


That is a problem we are hitting time and again - different specs seem 
to be doing different things regarding iq responses for requests which 
they dont want to handle.

The response for an entity which does not exist, that is not available, 
which has blocked sender, which does not support that service (does not 
understand request/namespace), which does not want to respond so as to 
avoid privacy leaks - for different set of usecases, each of these would 
result in a different error code back.
So, careful monitoring of responses can actually be used to leak 
presence of a user (assuming he uses a well known resource and not 
random resource).

Which ever way we handle it - I am not at all comfortable with 
server/component/client ignoring iq packets and not responding to them.
It would be better if we fix this and get the client to respond back to 
sender appropriately such that there is no presence leak and yet sender 
does not know if the server/client is responding back with an error.

Regards,
Mridul


Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> FYI.
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:13:21 -0600
> From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org>
> To: council at xmpp.org
> Subject: [Council] meeting minutes, 2007-05-16
> 
> Results of the XMPP Council meeting held 2007-05-16...
> 
> Agenda:
> 
> http://www.jabber.org/council/meetings/agendas/2007-05-16.html
> 
> Log:
> 
> http://www.jabber.org/muc-logs/council@conference.jabber.org/2007-05-16.html 
> 
> 
> 0. Roll Call
> 
> All Council members except Ralph Meijer in attendance (i.e., Chris
> Mullins, Ian Paterson, Peter Saint-Andre, Kevin Smith). Quorum achieved.
> 
> 1. Next Meeting
> 
> Tentatively scheduled for May 30 (Chris unavailable that date).
> 
> 2. XEP-0174: Link-Local Messaging
> 
> No objections to including multiple JIDs or emails in TXT records.
> 
> Peter has contacted the DNS-SD "registrar" regarding changes to the
> registry for the presence service type.
> 
> Spec probably ready for a vote at next meeting.
> 
> 3. XEP-0004: Data Forms
> 
> Approve Version 2.8? No objections. Ralph to vote on list.
> 
> 4. XEP-0065: SOCKS5 Bytestreams
> 
> Approve Version 1.7? No objections. Ralph to vote on list.
> 
> 5. XEP-0156: Discovering Alternative XMPP Connection Methods
> 
> Issue Last Call? No objections. Not clear if this spec will be useful to
> developers and admins, feedback will be sought during Last Call.
> 
> 6. XEP-0199: XMPP Ping
> 
> Issue Last Call? No objections. Seemingly in wide use already.
> 
> 7. ProtoXEP: STUN Server Discovery for Jingle
> 
> Accept version 0.0.5 as a XEP? No objections.
> 
> 8. ProtoXEP: Hop Check
> 
> Accept version 0.0.3 as a XEP? Council has not reviewed yet. To consider
> at next meeting.
> 
> 9. ProtoXEP: Private Multi-User Conferencing
> 
> Accept version 0.0.1 as a XEP? Council has not reviewed yet. To consider
> at next meeting.
> 
> 10. Pubsub
> 
> Peter has not yet completed his analysis of XEP-0060 and XEP-0163, will
> do by end of this week.
> 
> 11. Left off agenda!
> 
> ProtoXEP: XMPP Intermediate IM Server 2008
> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/int-server-2008.html
> 
> Council members: If you have objections to accepting this as a XEP,
> please post to the list by end of week.
> 
> /psa
> 
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list