[Standards] XEP-296 problem?

Yann Leboulanger asterix at lagaule.org
Wed Aug 15 16:27:39 UTC 2012


On 08/15/2012 06:17 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 09:45, Yann Leboulanger wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was wonder what should I do in this situation:
>> user A and B are connected with resource r1. They that, so messages go from A/r1 to B/r1.
>>
>> user B connects a second client with resource r2 with a higher priority.
>>
>> Where should go next message of user A?
>>
>> Someone pointed me to XEP-0296 which clearly answer the question: next message should go to bare JID.
>>
>> So I started thinking how to implement this XEP, and came to a problem:
>>
>> let's imagine that r2 is LOWER prio than r1. XEP-0296 says that we still need to go to "unlock state". This mean starting a new thread of course as we don't know which resource will get it. But if the begining of the conversation was crypted? or if we negociated the log options or anything in XEP-0155, then we need to restart the negociation?
>>
>
> Any presence change from another resource for an entity is a change in the user's state.  The next message ought to go to the bare JID to allow the infrastructure to account for this change.
>
> For encrypted chat, see<  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-miller-xmpp-e2e-02>  for one approach to the problem.

it's not ok for the defered E2E, or GPG (next message CANNOT be GPG 
encrypted as we don't where where it will go.

I haven't read your draft, but I'm sure it cannot cover the case where 
one resource supports it and not the other. So next message cannot be 
encrypted if we don't know for sure where it goes.

-- 
Yann



More information about the Standards mailing list