[Standards] Question about XEP-191: Simple Communications Blocking
Ben.Schumacher at webex.com
Fri Jan 9 19:02:25 UTC 2009
Peter, et al-
I have a quick query about XEP-191. In Section 3, Relationship to
Privacy Lists, the XEP states that the new protocol is intended to be a
user-friendly front-end to the privacy lists protocol. While I have some
personal issues with this stated goal (in particular I don't think that
XEP-16's requirement for in-order processing is particularly useful), I
do have a specific question about implementation.
First, should there be some "standard" name for a list that is generated
by this protocol if it is retrieved via the XEP-16 protocol? Using the
URI of the blocking protocol would probably be sufficient (and could
provide a hint to sophisticated clients that this list was generated
using the simple protocol), but I am curious if there is guidance from
the standards body.
Additionally, the implications listed in Section 3 state:
If all of a user's clients always use simple communications blocking,
then the default privacy list will be equivalent to the blocklist and
the default privacy list will be a kind of "virtual list" (in the sense
that it is never modified directly by any of the clients).
This rule implies to me that there should be some interaction with
entity capabilities such that the server knows if the clients support
this protocol or not. This would, of course, require that the client
publish proper caps in its initial presence and the server will have to
defer this decision (i.e. should I be using the Simple Blocking list vs.
the list defined as "default" in XEP-16) until the capabilities
information has been cached by the server.
Finally, the 5th implication in this section states:
If one of a user's clients makes active something other than the default
privacy list, the user may receive communications from contacts who are
blocked in the default list.
Is there an expectation here that a connect client that's using the
simple blocking protocol would get the push notifications of the updated
blocklist? That question applies to the wider context of the usage of
this protocol - should privacy list modification cause simple blocking
protocol pushes and vice versa?
Thanks for your time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards