[Standards] [Fwd: [Council] meeting minutes, 2007-05-16]
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.
More information about the Standards