[Standards] XEP-0191 leads to stale presence?

Tedd Sterr teddsterr at outlook.com
Fri Jun 21 23:09:12 UTC 2019


mea culpa

So, section 3.4 User Unblocks JID, paragraph last-1:

"When the user unblocks communications with a JID, the user's server MUST send the user's current presence information to the JID (but only if the JID is allowed to receive presence notifications from the user in accordance with the rules defined in RFC 3921)."

It doesn't explicitly say to probe, but 'current presence' should imply sending one if necessary..? It would be the same as initially coming online.

Though there's nothing wrong with being more explicit.


________________________________
From: Standards <standards-bounces at xmpp.org> on behalf of Philipp Hörist <philipp at hoerist.com>
Sent: 21 June 2019 22:10
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0191 leads to stale presence?

I think you misunderstood what Kim meant.

Its about unblocking, so you are obviously again interested in presence, the XEP does not mention the client or server should send a probe because the presence is stale

regards
Philipp

Am Fr., 21. Juni 2019 um 22:57 Uhr schrieb Tedd Sterr <teddsterr at outlook.com<mailto:teddsterr at outlook.com>>:
If you block a contact, presumably that means you don't want them to see your presence and you're not interested in theirs.
In that case, presence going stale is unimportant (shouldn't be shown anyway?), and any kind of probes would be considered a leak.

There may be a small case for still viewing their presence for spying purposes, but I'm not sure it's worth the extra complication.

[Possibly worth contrasting with XEP-0186 (Invisible Command) where you would still want to view presence.]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20190621/694191bb/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list