[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Stanza Repeaters

Richard Dobson richard at dobson-i.net
Fri Mar 21 17:19:08 UTC 2008


> Since pretty much everyone considers privacy lists a not so successful
> invention, I don't think IESG would object a lot if we were to say
> "We've been there, we wore that t-shirt, it didn't look good."

Who were they? I must have missed those messages on this list.

> The IESG would certainly understand that given the scalability challenge
> XMPP is facing, having a drastic improvement in presence routing is
> worth dropping those privacy lists which make presence intransparent.
> If you don't want me to receive your presence information, unsubscribe me.

Yes unsubscribing people from your presence allows you to stop people 
from receiving your presence, but thats an utterly broken way of doing 
things as its not the type of situation privacy lists are really 
designed for. Privacy list presence blocking is more designed for 
situations were you want to *temporarily* stop certain contacts 
receiving your presence and then be able to re-allow them to receive it, 
if you wanted to permanently stop them from receiving it you would 
unsubscribe them just as you suggest and not use privacy lists. An 
example of where you would use this would be when you are at work and 
you only want your work colleages to receive your presence and not your 
mates, but when you get home you might want the reverse to be true, this 
is something that is impossible to accomplish using the method you 
state, as once you have unsubscribed someone from your presence there is 
no way for you to re-subscribe them again due to security 
considerations, it would rely on them resubscribing to your presence 
again themselves.

> Contacts don't _have_ to be subscribed to presence all the time.
> Everybody is throwing presence subscriptions at each other even if
> they don't know each other. Maybe we should have more subtle levels
> of being in contact. Presence out of politeness is a major burden
> for the XMPP network.

I fail to see why this is a protocol issue, if people are accepting 
presence subscriptions out of politeness thats a social issue...

> You have to trust remote servers anyway, but remote servers should keep
> their own data structures on who subscribed what, not let clients modify
> them using the roster protocol. The server should be fair and
> transparent to both local users and its friends.

Huh? Why shouldnt clients be allowed to modify a users own roster?

Richard




More information about the Standards mailing list