[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0276 (Presence Decloaking)

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Tue Jul 17 09:39:57 UTC 2012


On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Simon McVittie
<simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
> On 17/07/12 00:26, Lance Stout wrote:
>> The reason value is really just a hint or suggestion
>
> Yes, that was my intention when I wrote the XEP. It seems a bit more
> user-friendly if you can hint at the reason for requesting de-cloaking:
>
>     /---------------------------------------\
>     | Alice <alice at example.com> is asking   |
>     | whether you are currently online, but |
>     | is not on your contact list.          |
>     | [ Reveal presence ] [ Ignore ]        |
>     \---------------------------------------/
>
> ("what do I do about that?!") vs.
>
>     /---------------------------------------------\
>     | Alice <alice at example.com> wants to          |
>     | call you, but is not on your contact list.  |
>     | Allowing the call to be started will reveal |
>     | that you are currently online.              |
>     | [ Reveal presence ] [ Ignore ]              |
>     \---------------------------------------------/
>
> ("oh, this is just an incoming call from someone I don't know, I know
> what to think about that").

Right, I had assumed that. However, I'm not sure the protocol and the
UI tie in as closely as might first appear (given that a malicious
entity would just pick the session type most likely to be accepted).
That is: The UI could say"Alice wants to start a conversation with you
- this will reveal that you're online. [Reveal] [Ignore]" or whatever.
Including a machine-readable indication of what's going to happen
afterwards seems appealing - but ultimately I'm not sure that it helps
(and it introduces additional complexity and need for extensibility
and ...).

/K



More information about the Standards mailing list