Re: [Standards] XEP-0191 leads to stale presence?
Hi, The section means, my server sends my presence to the now unblocked contact. Yes this would look like im coming online to the contact. But this does not solves the problem that i dont have current presence information about the unblocked contact. The server sending my presence to the contact does not lead to getting up-to-date presence information of the contact back. So if you follow the XEP, you end up with stale presence of the unblocked contact. Regards Philipp Am Sa., 22. Juni 2019 um 01:16 Uhr schrieb Tedd Sterr : > *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. > > ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] XEP-0191 leads to stale presence?
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 on behalf of Philipp Hörist 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 mailto:teddst...@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.] ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
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 : > 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.] > ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] XEP-0191 leads to stale presence?
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.] From: Standards on behalf of Kim Alvefur Sent: 20 June 2019 20:31 To: standards@xmpp.org Subject: [Standards] XEP-0191 leads to stale presence? Hi, While working on a fix for Prosodys XEP-0191 implementation¹ regarding presence sent to a blocked JID to pretend that the blocking user is offline, and then re-send presence again if they unblock. However, since if you block someone, your view of their presence will become stale. The XEP does not say anything about this. Is it implied that the server should send a presence probe or otherwise try to do something about that? ¹ https://issues.prosody.im/1380 -- Regards, Kim "Zash" Alvefur ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
[Standards] Council Minutes 2019-06-19
http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2019-06-19?p=h#2019-06-19-99685c679f9bca3d 1) Roll Call Present: Jonas, Dave, Link Apologies: Georg, Kev 2) Firmly Agenda Bashing Jonas would like to LC XEP-0300 (again) - Dave says it was already voted and Georg wanted to -1 until he'd taken a proper look - Jonas says Georg can take a proper look now that a rendered version has been published. Jonas also notes PR #793 needs Council attention. 3a) Last Call: XEP-0300 (Use of Cryptographic Hash Functions in XMPP) - https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0300.html Jonas to shepherd, if required. Jonas: +1 Dave: +1 Link: +1 Georg: [pending] Kev: [pending] 4) Outstanding Votes Hold on a second… 3b) PR #793 - XEP-0166: Relax transport element requirement - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/793 Dave asks whether this has been discussed on the Standards list - Jonas isn't sure, but remembers reading something somewhere sometime. Dave hasn't reviewed it, so is going to hold a -1 pending review and hunting for discussion evidence - expects plenty of people will have opinions on Jingle. Link thinks someone should poke Rion to start a thread about it - Jonas hands Link a stick. Jonas: [on-list] Link: [on-list] Dave: -1 (pending review) Georg: [pending] Kev: [pending] 4) Outstanding Votes Really This Time Now there are some. 5) Next Meeting 2019-06-26 1500 UTC 6) AOB Link asks Editors to merge PRs #690 and #789. 7) Close Thanks. ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
