Re: [Standards] XEP-0045 nick changes
On 2/15/12 5:01 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Tue Feb 14 04:09:45 2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 1/24/12 2:58 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: >> > I recall - ages ago - that we were going to, at one point, mention that >> > if you change your nickname, you should send unavailable persence after >> > the change to the old nick: >> > >> > C: >> > S: > > type='unavailable'>...110/303... >> > S: >> > C: >> > >> > The problem being that currently, the server must track directed >> > presence, and so if you change your nickname, the server keeps tracking >> > the old nickname too - and will eventually have to send an unavailable >> > anyway. >> >> Well, the server could do that immediately (when it accepts the nick >> change), no? > > No, your server has no real idea it *is* a nick change, without tracking > a lot more. It sounds like someone needs to write a spec proposal. Have at it. :) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Re: [Standards] XEP-0045 nick changes
On Tue Feb 14 04:09:45 2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 1/24/12 2:58 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > I recall - ages ago - that we were going to, at one point, mention that > if you change your nickname, you should send unavailable persence after > the change to the old nick: > > C: > S: type='unavailable'>...110/303... > S: > C: > > The problem being that currently, the server must track directed > presence, and so if you change your nickname, the server keeps tracking > the old nickname too - and will eventually have to send an unavailable > anyway. Well, the server could do that immediately (when it accepts the nick change), no? No, your server has no real idea it *is* a nick change, without tracking a lot more. 1) user@A joins room@B as nickname N1 - A now tracks directed presence to room@B/N1 2) user@A changes nickname to N2 - A now additionally tracks directed presence to room@B/N2 3) user@A leaves chatroom. type='unavailable'/> - A now stops tracking room@B/N2 4) user@A drops offline. - A now sends unavailable presence to room@B/N1 Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
Re: [Standards] XEP-0045 nick changes
On 2/14/12 12:59 AM, Kim Alvefur wrote: >> On 1/24/12 2:58 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: >>> I recall - ages ago - that we were going to, at one point, mention that >>> if you change your nickname, you should send unavailable persence after >>> the change to the old nick: >>> >>> C: >>> S: >> type='unavailable'>...110/303... >>> S: >>> C: >>> >>> The problem being that currently, the server must track directed >>> presence, and so if you change your nickname, the server keeps tracking >>> the old nickname too - and will eventually have to send an unavailable >>> anyway. >> >> Well, the server could do that immediately (when it accepts the nick >> change), no? > > Would it need to after the target JID sends unavailable? No, but depending on clients to do this seems slightly unrealistic, if they haven't been doing it up till now. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Re: [Standards] XEP-0045 nick changes
> On 1/24/12 2:58 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > > I recall - ages ago - that we were going to, at one point, mention that > > if you change your nickname, you should send unavailable persence after > > the change to the old nick: > > > > C: > > S: > type='unavailable'>...110/303... > > S: > > C: > > > > The problem being that currently, the server must track directed > > presence, and so if you change your nickname, the server keeps tracking > > the old nickname too - and will eventually have to send an unavailable > > anyway. > > Well, the server could do that immediately (when it accepts the nick > change), no? Would it need to after the target JID sends unavailable? -- Zash
Re: [Standards] XEP-0045 nick changes
On 1/24/12 2:58 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > I recall - ages ago - that we were going to, at one point, mention that > if you change your nickname, you should send unavailable persence after > the change to the old nick: > > C: > S: type='unavailable'>...110/303... > S: > C: > > The problem being that currently, the server must track directed > presence, and so if you change your nickname, the server keeps tracking > the old nickname too - and will eventually have to send an unavailable > anyway. Well, the server could do that immediately (when it accepts the nick change), no? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
[Standards] XEP-0045 nick changes
I recall - ages ago - that we were going to, at one point, mention that if you change your nickname, you should send unavailable persence after the change to the old nick: C: S: type='unavailable'>...110/303... S: C: The problem being that currently, the server must track directed presence, and so if you change your nickname, the server keeps tracking the old nickname too - and will eventually have to send an unavailable anyway. In addition, there's a small possibility that this could be used by unscrupulous rooms as a presence leak, by both the unavailable presence to the old nick and by using the response to probes (potentially). Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
