[Standards] Disco conflict between 30 and 163

Simon McVittie simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk
Tue Aug 26 14:55:07 UTC 2014


On 26/08/14 15:10, Kevin Smith wrote:
> 30 says not to reply with disco to entities not authorised for your presence.

Should the server follow this pseudocode for a disco instead?

    if target JID is bare:
        # any IQ to user at host is expected to be replied to by the server
        reply to it on the user's behalf, describing features of the
        server and the account (but nothing about the logged-in
        resources on that account, if any)

    else if peer is authorized to see user's presence:
        # any IQ to user at host/resource is expected to be replied to
        # by that resource
        forward message to the named resource so it can respond

    else:
        <service-unavailable/>

Regards,
    S




More information about the Standards mailing list