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

Stefan Karlsson sk at synergysky.com
Wed Jul 16 16:47:13 UTC 2014


Silly question:

Why not just have invisible as a presence mode, and remove the silly 
enforced empty <presence/> at initialization?

/stefan

Peter Saint-Andre skrev 16/07/14 17:11:
> 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