[Standards] Disco conflict between 30 and 163
kurt.zeilenga at isode.com
Tue Aug 26 15:40:27 UTC 2014
On Aug 26, 2014, at 7:55 AM, Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
> 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)
JID existence leak.
> 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
More information about the Standards