Re: [Standards] XEP-0191 leads to stale presence?
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 19:12, Dave Cridland wrote: > > > On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 20:32, Kim Alvefur wrote: > >> 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? >> >> > Yes. > > More usefully: I always assumed the intent of XEP-0191 was to make the subject appear offline to any blocked contacts, and make any blocked contacts appear offline, for the duration of the block. So as I recall - and no doubt Edwin and Kev can say if I recall correctly - when I last implemented it from scratch, I had the server probe a contact when unblocked, and and otherwise make it appear as if both sides had just come online (or stayed offline, or whatever). But you're quite right, none of this is in the letter of the specification (even the intent). Dave. > >> 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 mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] XEP-0191 leads to stale presence?
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 20:32, Kim Alvefur wrote: > 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? > > Yes. > > 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 mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] XEP-0191 leads to stale presence?
Hi, Also consider clients that do not understand XEP-0191, for which it would be even more confusing, as they would not have any way to know that the presence they've seen is stale. (Clients that implement '191 can know via blocklist push.) Having server generate unavailable presence when blocking and probe for fresh presence when unblocking for the JID being (un-)blocked would help keep all clients have a consistent view. This should still look like the user doing the blocking went offline and came back online from the perspective of the one being blocked? Is this something that was implied all along by the XMPP RFCs but not explicitly spelled out in XEP-0191 or a potentially breaking change to a Draft XEP? -- Kim "Zash" Alvefur signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] XEP-0191 leads to stale presence?
Thanks for the explanation - I obviously didn't read that very carefully (don't post late at night!) Still, it should be as if you just came online with regard to the unblocked contact - that means for both sending and receiving presence. Blocking will most likely last longer than five minutes, so the server may discard any presence information it was holding. If the contact is ever unblocked then fresh presence should be retrieved. But the XEP should probably explain this. From: Standards on behalf of Philipp Hörist Sent: 22 June 2019 00:28 To: XMPP Standards Subject: 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 ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
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 ___
