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

Justin Karneges justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com
Tue May 29 18:17:50 UTC 2007


On Tuesday 29 May 2007 8:39 am, Ian Paterson wrote:
> Dave Cridland wrote:
> > I see no technical advantage in changing [resources] to a random string.
>
> Well, how about the advantage that random resources seem to be the only
> feasable way to avoid presence leaks? (see previous posts)

This could use more explanation.  Do you have a previous post to refer to?

> Admittedly RFC 3920 does not specifically say, "A resource identifier
> MUST NOT be used as an undefined publishing channel between users"
> (perhaps it should?). However it does say, "A resource identifier is
> opaque to both servers and other clients".

The resource is opaque, but technically so is the whole JID.  I don't see the 
problem with making any part of it look nice.

> Several clients (IMHO 
> correctly) take that to mean "opaque to others, period". They therefore
> generate a random resource and they don't display other clients'
> resources to the user.

Then how would you handle multiple resources in a client, and without PEP?  
Keep in mind that resources have been around for years and years now.  You 
can't say that displaying the resource value is an incorrect practice.

-Justin



More information about the Standards mailing list