[Standards] Invisible Command and probes

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Jun 30 15:16:35 UTC 2010


On 6/30/10 12:48 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
> On 30 June 2010 06:13, Paul Aurich <paul at darkrain42.org> wrote:
>> While discussing XEP-0186 (Invisible Command) in
>> prosody at conference.prosody.im, I noticed that the specification doesn't
>> actually mention whether or not a server is supposed to generate any
>> sort of presence probes.
>>
>> Waqas suggested that based on historical discussions, most people think
>> the server shouldn't (I disagree, but anyway.)  Regardless of which side
>> of that people are on, I think the specification should, at the very
>> least, bring up the topic.
>>
> 
> I wasn't around for the discussion (I was sleeping for once) but my
> plan for a while has been to add a new attribute to signal this.
> Setting probe='true' would ask the server to send probes (and thus
> risk revealing your connected state) or probe='false' to not do this,
> but understand you may not receive presence from your contacts.

When in doubt, introduce an option? ;-)


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6820 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20100630/ce71f532/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list