[Standards] Blocking command and Privacy Lists

Florian Schmaus flo at geekplace.eu
Tue Dec 23 10:28:30 UTC 2014

On 22.12.2014 22:22, Holger Weiß wrote:
> * Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> [2014-12-22 16:31]:
>> On 22 December 2014 at 14:47, Holger Weiß <holger at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>> * Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com> [2014-12-22 05:31]:
>>>> I think if anything in XEP 191 needs to change, it's the discussion of
>>>> how one maps XEP 191 onto XEP 4 privacy lists that should change.  It
>>>> should be clearly stated that the blocking entity is required to perform
>>>> the mapping in such a way that all communications with the blocked JID
>>>> are blocked.
>>> And how should that entity map privacy rules that just block _some_ of
>>> the communication back to XEP-0191 rules?
>> XEP-0191 maps to XEP-0016, not the other way around.
> XEP-0191 says it should work in both directions:
> | If one of a user's clients uses privacy lists instead of blocklists and
> | modifies the default privacy list by removing a blocked JID or blocking
> | a new JID, then that change will be reflected in the blocklist.
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | If one of a user's clients removes the default privacy list and
> | substitutes a new list for the old list, the blocked JIDs in the new
> | default privacy list (if any) will become the new blocklist.
> [ http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0191.html#privacy ]

I read that as

"If a user deletes (adds) a privacy list item that is a mapped blocklist
item (can be represented as a mapped blocklist item), then it must be
treated as if this blocklist item had been deleted (added), e.g. send a
block push."

I never thought about it, but mapping xep191 to xep16 could look like this:

<!-- xep191 -->
<iq …>
  <blocklist …>
    <item jid='romeo at montague.net'/>

<!-- xep16 -->
<iq …>
  <query xmlns='jabber:iq:privacy'>
    <list …>
      <item type='jid'
            value='romeo at mmontague.net'/>
        <!-- don't specify anything here → block all stanzas -->

BTW, since it was voiced in this thread that xep16 should/could be
deprecated: I'm a fan of xep16 and don't see a reason to deprecated it.

- Florian

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 668 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20141223/f91d3485/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list