[Standards] 191

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Jul 8 22:09:03 UTC 2013


On 7/8/13 4:23 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> 
> On 8 Jul 2013 04:32, "Kevin Smith" <kevin at kismith.co.uk
> <mailto:kevin at kismith.co.uk>> wrote:
>>
>> In 191, if A as blocked B, B's presences to A should be dropped. Any
>> directed presence from A to B should be bounced. I can't see a
>> description of what should happen for A's broadcast presence - by a
>> literal reading of the XEP it seems to be unaffected (or I've missed
>> something).
>>
> 
> I think that it should be covered by the contact sending a stanza to the
> user. If you read contact as meaning a client session exclusively, and
> not the internal account maintained by the server, then I see where you
> get your reading from, but that then includes PEP, and is confusing in
> the light of the requirement to send unavailable presence.
> 
> That is, the intent is very clear, but the precise phrasing could use
> some more clarity.

Dave, I agree with your interpretation. Suggestions for clarification
are welcome. I'll try to look at it soon and propose some text.

Peter

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





More information about the Standards mailing list