[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Stanza Repeaters
Carlo v. Loesch
CvL at mail.symlynX.com
Thu Mar 20 00:15:38 UTC 2008
Richard Dobson typeth:
| The biggest issue with simply directing presence stanzas to the remote
| domain and then letting that fan it out by itself (rather than using
| something like the repeaters here) is that it means privacy lists (or
| anything which works in a similar way to them, i.e. being able to
| selectively stop presence going to roster items without changing your
| subscription) stop working at entirely, and I can't really see a way
| around that without using a concept such as repeaters where you are
| specifically telling the remote server who you want it fanned out to.
It's a very XMPP-as-it-is point of view, but from an outsider's point
of view I'd like to mention that the XMPP notion of polite presence
silence might feel morally hypocritical: Why can't I have the honesty
towards my non-friend to let him know that I no longer intend to send
him presence? Why do I asymmetrically keep on accepting his presence,
instead? A technological step that makes it harder to implement such
asymmetry, seems to be a leap towards fairness.
| Of course an evil server could still forward it to people you have not
| told it to but that will always be so as as you say its out of your
| hands, but at least with repeaters non-evil servers actually have an
| idea of where you want the presence stanzas to go.
I wouldn't call a server "evil" that undermines hypocrisy by
letting its users know when they are being presence-abused.
Repeaters are a technological improvement, although the XEP should
mention the people who made such type of suggestions in the first
place - and dropping the morally doubtful concept of privacy lists
for a more fair and efficient strategy, would be even better.
But XMPP is no arena for drastic measures. Let's wait a few more
years... until repeaters are too expensive for scalability.
More information about the Standards