[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)
graham at gkgk.org
Tue Jul 15 22:59:08 UTC 2014
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I have recently been working with XEP-0186, and I wanted to add notes
from my experience. I think some minor clarifications around when
invisibility stops could be added.
In 2. Requirements / point 2, it says "Invisible mode is active only
for the current session". Could it say ".. only for the current
*presence* session (as defined in RFC 6121 section 4.1)"? I puzzled
over what "session" meant.
In "3.2 User Becomes Visible" I think it would be worth mentioning
that a user can also become visible by ending their presence session,
sending an unavailable presence.
Finally as an implementation note, we noticed that Smack (3.2.2, over
BOSH) was sending two unavailable stanzas when it disconnects. The
first would end the presence session and implicitly the invisibility,
so the second got forwarded, which was not the client's intention. An
implementation note might want to remark that the user should stay
invisible until they start a new presence session (rather than until
the current one ends). We fixed this by not forwarding unavailable
stanzas for an already unavailable user, probably something we should
have been doing already.
I would be happy to send a patch for any part of this.
On 14-06-19 07:59 PM, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
> This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
> XEP-0186 (Invisible Command).
> Abstract: This document specifies an XMPP-compatible protocol for
> user invisibility.
> URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0186.html
> This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business
> on 2014-07-03.
> Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and
> send your feedback to the standards at xmpp.org discussion list:
> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
> stack or to clarify an existing protocol? 2. Does the specification
> solve the problem stated in the introduction and requirements? 3.
> Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not,
> why not? 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this
> specification? 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly
> Your feedback is appreciated!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Standards