[jdev] Presence leak test suite
Peter Saint-Andre
stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Jul 9 12:59:32 CDT 2008
Kevin Smith wrote:
>> My point is that the server can't just check the suubscription state in the
>> roster. Also it introduces a good argument for my proposed best practice of
>> sharing presence for ad-hoc chats/interactions:
>> http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-05.html#message-chat
>
> Yes, I've agreed that sharing presence when chatting makes sense for a
> while, so I agree with the best practice. It does seem weird to have
> that the client MUST allow this to be disabled though - currently,
> that section reads that a client is not XMPP compliant (i.e. it breaks
> a MUST in the RFC) if it follows the best practices in the RFC :)
Hmm, am I missing something? The text in section 5.4 of rfc3921bis says:
***
If a user exchanges messages with a contact but the user does not
normally share presence with the contact via a presence subscription, it
is RECOMMENDED for the user's client to send directed presence to the
contact, subject to user approval (either explicitly for this contact or
implicitly via a configuration setting). If a client supports this
feature, it MUST allow the user to disable the feature in order to
prevent presence sharing with unknown entities.
***
So presence sharing is RECOMMENDED, and a client MUST allow a (paranoid)
user to disable the RECOMMENDED practice of presence sharing. I don't
see an outright contradiction there. A tension, perhaps. :)
/psa
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20080709/25c118aa/attachment-0002.bin>
More information about the JDev
mailing list