[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0211 (XMPP Basic Client 2008)

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu May 31 22:30:06 UTC 2007


Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>>
>>> Since 3921 is mandatory, is privacy list mandatory too ? :)
>>
>> Ideally, rfc3921bis would be mandatory, since it reflects 
>> implementation experience gained since 2004. Same goes for rfc3920bis.
>>
>> Peter
>>
> 
> bis spec does not say which to use - while 3921 does.

Correct. XEP-0016 is Draft. XEP-0191 is Experimental. Many companies 
have a policy not to implement Experimental XEPs in released software. 
YMMV. :)

> Currently our thoughts are to keep block list separate from privacy list 
> and apply whichever is enabled by client (if neither is enabled by 
> client, default privacy list would be - if either is enabled, only 
> privacy list or only block list) since we are not able to reconcile the 
> differences between both properly .. cant really make one a frontend to 
> another.
> 
> Also, there is an inability to add wildcard contacts - like in/not in 
> roster, in/not contact group, etc : need not be as powerful as privacy 
> list, but something simpler along those lines would be great.

So our work is not done when it comes to communications blocking? 
Another good reason to remove it from rfc3921bis.

Please understand why we forced the old "zebra lists" protocol 
(XEP-0016) into RFC 3921 in the first place, before it was fully baked. 
There are some requirements in RFC 2779 about blocking of presence and 
messages, see here:

http://www.jabber.org/ietf/reqsum.html

RFC 2779 also says it must be possible to encapsulate contact 
information, a requirement that we fulfilled by reference to XEP-0054. 
We didn't include the vcard-temp spec in RFC 3921 (ick!) and for the 
same reason I don't see a good reason to include privacy lists in 
rfc3921bis. Make your best decisions about what technology to implement 
and deploy. At the moment that seems to be privacy lists.

On the more general point, I think it makes sense for these 2008 
compliance docs to reference the bis drafts because they incorporate our 
community's wisdom on what needs to be modified in the specs based on 3 
years of implementation and deployment experience. Why codify practices 
that are out of date by requiring RFC 3920 and RFC 3921 rather than 
rfc3920bis and rfc3921bis?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
XMPP Standards Foundation
http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070531/56e08372/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list