[Standards] PAM Source Selection
dave at cridland.net
Wed Sep 7 09:23:52 UTC 2016
On 7 Sep 2016 11:22, "Kevin Smith" <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2016, at 10:20, Georg Lukas <georg at op-co.de> wrote:
> > * Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> [2016-09-07 11:19]:
> >> It’s not clear to me that another stanza is necessary, and that this
> >> can’t come out of normal caps handling by the server. It’s probably
> >> not the end of the world to have one, but I think I would be inclined
> >> to start investigating things in terms of the traditional caps
> >> mechanism, and then upgrade to a new stanza when we find it’s needed.
> >> I’m relatively low-F on this (maybe 4ish).
> > I think the biggest problem with adding this to caps is privacy. You
> > don't want your MIX whitelist/blacklist to leak to third parties, and it
> > will be a significant amout of work on the server to rewrite all caps
> > and presence stanzas from a client to filter that out.
> This is right (crossing wires between the MUC and here).
> I think I would rather that the basic stuff happened immediately on caps
presence, and that additional filtering beyond purely capabilities came in
a second stanza, so that in the usual case you're not adding yet another
request/response to the login (which I know doesn't need to be a roundtrip).
So I was assuming that the first step would be pipelined, but I take your
point - it's worth investigating, since it reduces the common case.
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards