[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Jul 16 15:11:56 UTC 2014


On 6/19/14, 9:30 PM, Lance Stout wrote:
>> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
>
> This is a feature that has received a lot of end-user requests, and we have no other good way to do it, so yes.
>
> If anyone is going to ever implement this feature, let's have a thought out approach for them instead of horrible hacks.
>
>
>> 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction and requirements?
>
> Yes, it does.
>
>
>> 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, why not?
>
> I've implemented this twice already on the client side - in SleekXMPP and stanza.io.
>
> However, I'm not aware of any server-side implementation to use those with.

I've been talking about adding it to Prosody. :-)

>> 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
>
> As mentioned in the XEP, it's still very easy to expose the fact that you're online, but any method of accomplishing presence invisibility will have that issue.

Yes, and this is one reason I don't like the entire concept of invisibility.

However, as noted, if we're going to do invisibility (and users want it 
so clients will be written to support it), then let's at least have a 
reasonable protocol for it.

> One thing I notice not mentioned in the XEP is client handling of bookmarks set to auto join.

Good point. I'll add a note about that.

Peter





More information about the Standards mailing list