[Standards] Decloaking and Temporary Subscriptions

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Thu Jan 21 10:51:50 UTC 2010


On Thu Jan 21 05:45:27 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Well, your server could send those interim presence changes right  
> now,
> because that's allowed but not required by RFC 3921 (IIRC). This is
> something we might want to take up in the XMPP WG.

It can? I believe a broadcast presence change is sent only to roster  
contacts, and moreover this is actually relied upon by some clients.

> Doing this via <message/> instead of <presence/>, and using message
> mine-ing or a similar technology to retract the decloak requests  
> that
> were delivered to the other resources, would at least enable the  
> other
> clients to remove those popups at the other resources. Rob and I had
> some discussions about <message/> vs. <presence/> for decloaking  
> and I
> think it's worth it to continue that discussion.

Yes, but again, mime-ing requires all clients *and* the server for a  
user to play the same game, plus it throws away priority entirely.

We have a facility already for clients requesting access to another  
parties presence that does all this - it's called a subscription.

I suppose I've yet to put my finger on what's fundamentally so  
different about decloaking that it needs a wholly different mechanism  
to operate.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade



More information about the Standards mailing list