[jdev] Invisibility. Was: Presence of type "available" not allowed?

[Ralph Meijer]

On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 15:52 +0200, Tomasz Sterna wrote:
> Dnia 2008-05-05, pon o godzinie 07:35 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre pisze:
> > >> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0186.html
> > > 
> > > I prefer: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0126.html
> > 
> > Or something. :)
> > 
> > Let's get consensus on an approach that works so we can stop talking
> > about <presence type='invisible'/> because that monstrosity will never
> > be standardized.
> 
> If XEP-0018 (Invisible Presence) is such a monstrosity, why do you
> propose XEP-0186?
> These are after all nearly the same. The only difference is the switch
> that turns the invisible mode (IQ instead of PRESENCE).
> It requires the same as XEP-0018 (or even more) special casing in
> presence handling and is similarly horrid to implement.

Any form of invisibility will require special casing in presence
handling by the server, no? I believe XEP-0186 could be mapped to the
same backend as Privacy Lists, and is just a protocol short-hand for
XEP-0126 in that case.

I am with Peter that adding new types to one of our three Stanza kinds
is not the proper way to solve this problem. First of all, we extend
through namespaces. Second, an iq is an ideal way to ask the server to
process something differently for you, in this case, how it handles
presence distribution. I think it is a nice separation of concerns.

My only concern with XEP-0186 is the security considerations section,
which advises not to reply to IQs. I don't think that is proper. If the
intend is for the client to not respond to incoming IQs, the server
should respond on behalf of the client. XEP-0126's security
considerations mention this nicely.

-- 
Groetjes,

ralphm