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

Rachel Blackman rcb at ceruleanstudios.com
Sat May 19 03:34:54 UTC 2007

Hash: SHA1

On May 18, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:

> On Friday 18 May 2007 3:40 pm, Rachel Blackman wrote:
>> If we /do/ go that direction, I would think it would be the
>> responsibility of the server to normalize IQ error replies to match
>> its own format, rather than coming up with one diehard unchanging
>> specification for ordering children and tags and whatever else.
>> Otherwise, just to be /certain/, a client would have to probe a
>> server on connection, discover how the server handles errors, and
>> then emulate it.
> What I'd like to see are servers that will reject inbound iq  
> packets if the
> other entity does not have your presence.  This would only apply if  
> the
> inbound iq packet is targetting a typical IM account.  Wouldn't  
> this solve a
> ton of privacy problems?

Sure, but it would create other problems.

Consider a <message/> from someone not on your list (it happens,  
after all).  This <message/> stanza contains caps bits (which can,  
after all, be put in a message to someone not on your contact list).   
You don't have one particular caps#ext node cached, so you send a  
disco query to them...

...and it gets rejected.  You are sad, for now you do not know that  
the two of you can voice chat.  Woe. :'(

- --
Rachel Blackman <rcb at ceruleanstudios.com>
Trillian Messenger - http://www.trillianastra.com/

Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)


More information about the Standards mailing list