On Jan 15, 2008 8:06 PM, Dave Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be reasonable to cache iq:version results against node+ver+v
of the XEP-115 if the hash attribute exists?
It doesn't really work, since the node+ver+v doesn't contain as much
info as the iq:version does.
There's no
On Jan 17, 2008 6:42 AM, Rachel Blackman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seriously, we're talking about breaking a really good protocol for
information that is only mildly useful...
Sure, but then recognize some people will iq:version flood because
they'll feel the need to query an entire contact
Kevin Smith wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 8:06 PM, Dave Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be reasonable to cache iq:version results against node+ver+v
of the XEP-115 if the hash attribute exists?
It doesn't really work, since the node+ver+v doesn't contain as much
info as the iq:version
Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
Yet another alternative is to change protocol flow:
1. server sends you auth agent JID (and only this) as realm
2. users asks agent (via XMPP) for one-time-tokenn/password
3. users provides this token as HTTP auth password (leaving username blank)
Advantages are:
*
On Thu Jan 17 18:08:54 2008, Kevin Smith wrote:
I confess that I'm starting to wonder what the difference is between
iq version floods and presence floods when you log on.
I thought about this, too.
Let us suppose a user with N contacts in the roster who are online at
the moment the user
Rachel Blackman, ever the voice of reason, wrote:
That said, we've probably spent more than enough time on this aspect of
the discussion. So if everyone else is fine with just saying 'users
want this and iq:version is sufficient, let's just trust the client
authors to query in a sane
On Jan 17, 2008 6:42 AM, Rachel Blackman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Seriously, we're talking about breaking a really good protocol for
information that is only mildly useful...
Sure, but then recognize some people will iq:version flood because
they'll feel the need to query an entire contact
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Thu Jan 17 18:08:54 2008, Kevin Smith wrote:
I confess that I'm starting to wonder what the difference is between
iq version floods and presence floods when you log on.
I thought about this, too.
Let us suppose a user with N contacts in the roster who are online at
On Thu Jan 17 18:15:02 2008, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 8:06 PM, Dave Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be reasonable to cache iq:version results against
node+ver+v
of the XEP-115 if the hash attribute exists?
It doesn't really work, since the node+ver+v doesn't contain as
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Well we're almost there, we could just put everything in caps and be
done with it:
OK check it out and see what you think:
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0115-1.5.html
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Well we're almost there, we could just put everything in caps and be
done with it:
OK let's look at the numbers.
I log in and send presence with FullCaps:
presence from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/roundabout'
c xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/caps'
hash='sha-1'
Peter Saint-Andre schrieb:
This puts things in a bit of a different light. I might change presence
8+ times during a presence session, but I'd bet that most users don't do
change presence that often. Therefore it seems to me that plunking
n+os+v in caps is not evil from the perspective of
This puts things in a bit of a different light. I might change
presence 8+ times during a presence session, but I'd bet that most
users don't do change presence that often. Therefore it seems to me
that plunking n+os+v in caps is not evil from the perspective of
bandwidth usage.
+1
On Jan 17, 2008 9:43 PM, Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We'll run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. :)
I'll drink to that.
Per Dave's comment:
I don't see an attack.
What one could do, with the previously suggested method (not the
current xep proposal) is to claim to be Psi
Hi,
On Jan 17, 2008, at 8:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
So each time I send presence I generate another 16,000 bytes.
Therefore I would need to change presence 8.5 times during the life
of my presence session to equal the iq:version request+response
interaction that I would have
Pedro Melo wrote:
Hi,
On Jan 17, 2008, at 8:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
So each time I send presence I generate another 16,000 bytes.
Therefore I would need to change presence 8.5 times during the life of
my presence session to equal the iq:version request+response
interaction that I
Thanks to feedback from Justin Karneges, I have clarified and corrected
a few points in the provisional version 1.1 of XEP-0174 (Link-Local
Communications):
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0174-1.1.html
http://svn.xmpp.org:18080/browse/XMPP/trunk/extensions/xep-0174.xml?r1=1555r2=1588
17 matches
Mail list logo
