[Standards] 191

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Sun Jul 14 09:32:06 UTC 2013


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> 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.

I agree too, FWIW.

Thanks.

/K



More information about the Standards mailing list