On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Justin Karneges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 03 October 2008 17:18:45 Matthew Wild wrote: >> I thought I recalled some discussion on the lists already regarding >> this, but I haven't been able to find it. On resource binding, the RFC >> says the server MAY modify the client's chosen resource. Is there a >> reason that it doesn't say "If the client provides a resource, the >> server SHOULD use this" instead? > > I'm not sure if it makes much of a difference. Either way it would be legal > for the server to change the resource. Are you saying you want to actively > discourage the practice? I don't like servers changing the resource either, > but I think "MAY" is the right wording here, which is that the spec doesn't > take a position on it. >
If it doesn't make much difference, let's change it :) While it is MAY as it is now I believe servers will begin implementing it as a consequence of all the discussions about leaking presence through user-specified resources. It's as good as a recommendation. I would simply rather the focus be on the IM clients to change instead. There is almost no point at all in allowing the client to specify a resource if the server has every right to modify it. It's not a road I think we want to go down. >> - It is easier to say to a user "Use a better (ie. more up to date) >> client" than "Use a more up to date server" (something over which they >> mostly have no control) > > Well, you'll still have the problem that servers are allowed to modify your > resource. So the issue of choosing the right server that best fits you is > still there even with your proposed wording change. > We're living with Google Talk which already does this, I can cope. But I don't want to see more servers playing around with my resource this way, then I won't cope :) Matthew.
