[Standards] [Fwd: [Council] meeting minutes, 2007-05-16]
rcb at ceruleanstudios.com
Sat May 19 03:34:54 UTC 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
> 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/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Standards