[Standards] [Fwd: [Council] meeting minutes, 2007-05-16]
stpeter at jabber.org
Fri May 18 16:14:26 UTC 2007
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 04:53:44AM +0530, Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>> Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>> Client could just send with response with 'from' set to the full jid -
>> the server would do the same if the recepient was unavailable, was
>> blocking, etc.
>> The 'presence' of the full jid will not be revealed in this case
>> (request was for a full jid anyway).
> Ah, I see what you're saying, the server would simply swap the from and
> to, and the original sender would not know the difference.
>> The conflicting responses (error code, etc) is what will reveal if the
>> server is sending a response, server blocked on behalf of client, client
>> blocked (so as not to reveal presence), etc.
> Right. We'll clean that up before XEP-0199 goes for a vote.
BTW, RFC 3920, Section 10.5, Point 2 says:
If the JID contains a resource identifier and there exists no
connected resource that matches the full JID, the recipient's
server SHOULD return a <service-unavailable/> stanza error to
In order to have consistency of responses (thus not leaking presence),
in rfc3920bis we need to change the SHOULD to MUST for the server
response and in all protocols specify that a client MUST respond with
<service-unavailable/> as well (if it does not want to reply to the
sender for privacy reasons).
XMPP Standards Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards