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

Mridul Mridul.Muralidharan at Sun.COM
Wed May 30 10:46:29 UTC 2007

iirc, this discussion was sparked off by the proposal to drop iq's :)
Or by drop you mean return appropriate iq-error ?


Kevin Smith wrote:
> We already have a solution which solves a problem very much like this
> (indeed, it could just about be used to address this, although it has
> limitations).
> Currently you can add a privacy list which denies iq for contacts with
> subscription 'none'.
> I don't think it would be too onerous to add a protocol which drops iq
> to full jids for contacts with subscription 'none', and I think this
> would address all camps' issues. It maintains the resource, which some
> of us would still have trouble living without (I need to know what each
> of my resources is, for example, some of which may be in the same room
> and online at once with the same client version etc, possibly even from
> the same PC. It's opaque in the same way as the user part of a jid is,
> but I still need to have set it (gtalk's method works well here, they
> get the random resources that make server farming easier, and I still
> get immediately identifiable resources)) while ensuring that presence
> isn't leaked by different replies to iq from server and client, etc.
> To my eye, this seems like a really clean solution, doesn't break what
> we already have (although you may feel it needs to be broken), and
> solves the leak problem.
> /K
> --Kevin Smith
> Psi XMPP Client Project Leader (http://psi-im.org)

More information about the Standards mailing list