[Standards] Invisible Command and probes

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Jun 30 15:56:37 UTC 2010


On 6/30/10 9:32 AM, Paul Aurich wrote:
> On 2010-06-30 08:16, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Invisibility is evil.
> 
> I'd say 'broken', but poe-tay-toe, poe-tah-toe. :)
> 
>> On 6/29/10 11:13 PM, Paul Aurich 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.
>>
>> When the user changes from visible to invisible?
> 
> When the user wants to "log in" as invisible (so the client doesn't have
> any prior presence activity and most of the user's buddies are going to
> appear offline, regardless of actual presence).

Ah, I see.

First, did I mention that invisibility is evil?

Second, I think that if a user authenticates and binds a resource but
does not send initial presence, the server can take an IQ-set with
<invisible xmlns='urn:xmpp:invisible:0'/> as a signal that the user is
interested in receiving presence but not sending presence, at which
point it seems appropriate for the user's server to send presence
probes. Else how will the user receive presence from his buddies and
thereby take advantage of the magic invisibility ring? (I agree that
it's *dark* magic, but if we're going to do invisibility then we might
as well be completely evil.)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/



-------------- 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/e018e3d7/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list