Kevin Smith wrote: > On 28 Aug 2007, at 02:49, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Kevin Smith wrote: >>> I think the solution is simple though; if the server isn't routing your >>> presence to someone, it should reply to iqs on your behalf saying you're >>> not there. This is consistent with the route people have been suggesting >>> recently (and I think I agree with) of 'if you want to start an X >>> session with someone not on your roster, send directed presence first'. >> >> I'm not yet sure that's the right approach. I mean, it seems quite >> reasonable to me (which is why I keep mentioning it), but Ian Paterson >> has objected that you might want to engage in a stanza session with >> someone but not share presence (e.g., a Jingle call). > > Well, there's at least a train of thought that says that it's rather > difficult to have a voip call with someone without revealing that you're > there ;) I think it's reasonable enough to send directed presence at the > start of a chat session, and revoke it afterwards. You don't disclose > any aditional information that way than you would do just by having some > stanza exchanging session.
Agreed. I will formulate some proposed text along these lines for rfc3921bis, i.e., both for "we suggest that you share presence for a stanza session with an unknown person" and for "the server should answer on behalf of IQs to the full JID if you're not sharing presence". Then we'll run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. :) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
