On 7/6/14, 11:56 AM, Christian Schudt wrote:
I might be too late to the party,
Definitely not!
but I just began implementing it on
client side and I think 3.1.2 Client Handling lacks some point:
After becoming invisible the client should (automatically?) send
directed presence (which equals the last undirected presence) to all
entities in the "communicants list"!?
That seems reasonable, although I think the presence could be "mere
presence" with no availability state (e.g., if there was no previous
presence notification because the user came online).
Here's my other feedback:
1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
Yes. I remember using invisibility in ICQ back in the 90s :-) so it
should be in XMPP in 2014...
Well we have it, but in other ways. This way is better. IMHO. :-)
2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the
introduction and requirements?
Yes, maintaining a privacy list on client side is cumbersome.
3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If
not, why not?
Yes.
4. Do you have any security concerns related to this
specification?
Maybe presence leaks, while being invisible and in a MUC room (and
some occupants are also on your roster) could be mentioned?
Will add.
5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
Mostly yes. But some points: Is "communicants" a good term in this
context? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/communicant says its obsolete
and has primarily a religious meaning. I'm no native speaker though.
They're not really contacts (as in the roster), and "the list of people
you communicate with" is awkward. I'll see if I can find a better term.
I think there's a typo "the client behave as follows". Should be
"behaves"?
That's a subjunctive. :-)
Integration with privacy lists: How does the server know what are the
"relevant privacy lists". Is it by convention the list named
"invisible", which is being activated for the session? If yes,
wouldn't it prevent directed presence? XEP-0126 could have been
linked in this section.
I'll look into this part of the spec.
Thanks for your feedback!
Peter
