Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2017-12-11 Thread Kevin Smith
On 7 Dec 2017, at 17:35, Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor) wrote: > > This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on > XEP-0186. > > Title: Invisible Command > Abstract: > This document specifies an XMPP protocol extension for user > invisibility. > > URL:

[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2017-12-07 Thread XSF Editor
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0186. Title: Invisible Command Abstract: This document specifies an XMPP protocol extension for user invisibility. URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0186.html This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2017-08-20 Thread Evgeny Khramtsov
Sat, 19 Aug 2017 21:17:28 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > I'll make the relevant fixes soon! My few cents. Section 3.1: > The element MUST include a 'probe' attribute ... > The default logical value is FALSE ... This doesn't make sense: a required attribute cannot have

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2017-08-19 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 6/17/17 10:29 AM, Sam Whited wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Remko Tronçon wrote: >>> This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on >>> 2017-03-14. >> >> FYI, this XEP seems to be in last call after its end date. > > This one was waiting on

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2017-06-17 Thread Sam Whited
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Remko Tronçon wrote: >> This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on >> 2017-03-14. > > FYI, this XEP seems to be in last call after its end date. This one was waiting on some updates based on list feedback, IIRC, but

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2017-06-17 Thread Remko Tronçon
Hi, > This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on 2017-03-14. FYI, this XEP seems to be in last call after its end date. > 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or > to clarify an existing protocol? Yes. AFAICT, there's no other way

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2017-03-07 Thread Ruslan N. Marchenko
On 07.03.2017 12:31, Jonas Wielicki wrote: I would like a rationale for why after going visible again, the session is treated as before sending initial presence. This feels counter-intuitive to me: I would expect all my contacts to see the presence I most recently sent to those on my "visible

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2017-03-07 Thread Florian Schmaus
On 07.03.2017 12:31, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 16:27:59 CET XMPP Extensions Editor wrote: >> This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0186 >> (Invisible Command). >> >> 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification? > >

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2017-03-07 Thread Jonas Wielicki
On Dienstag, 28. Februar 2017 16:27:59 CET XMPP Extensions Editor wrote: > This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0186 > (Invisible Command). > > Abstract: This document specifies an XMPP protocol extension for user > invisibility. > > URL:

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2017-02-28 Thread Ruslan N. Marchenko
On 28.02.2017 17:27, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote: This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0186 (Invisible Command). Abstract: This document specifies an XMPP protocol extension for user invisibility. URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0186.html This Last Call

[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2017-02-28 Thread XMPP Extensions Editor
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0186 (Invisible Command). Abstract: This document specifies an XMPP protocol extension for user invisibility. URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0186.html This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2014-07-17 Thread Tomasz Sterna
Dnia 2014-06-20, pią o godzinie 02:59 +, XMPP Extensions Editor pisze: 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or to clarify an existing protocol? No. 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction and requirements? It appears

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2014-07-16 Thread Dave Cridland
On 15 July 2014 23:59, Graham King gra...@gkgk.org wrote: I have recently been working with XEP-0186, and I wanted to add notes from my experience. I think some minor clarifications around when invisibility stops could be added. These comments are great, thanks. In 2. Requirements / point

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2014-07-16 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 6/19/14, 9:30 PM, Lance Stout wrote: 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or to clarify an existing protocol? This is a feature that has received a lot of end-user requests, and we have no other good way to do it, so yes. If anyone is going to ever

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2014-07-16 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
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

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2014-07-16 Thread Stefan Karlsson
Silly question: Why not just have invisible as a presence mode, and remove the silly enforced empty presence/ at initialization? /stefan Peter Saint-Andre skrev 16/07/14 17:11: On 6/19/14, 9:30 PM, Lance Stout wrote: 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2014-07-16 Thread Kamil Kisiel
Actually with the current iq scheme, that's one thing that should be clarified: Can the invisible iq be sent before initial presence? It seems that would need to be supported in order to not leak your presence when you first log on, otherwise a contact may see you come online momentarily and

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2014-07-16 Thread Graham King
On 14-07-16 12:39 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: On 15 July 2014 23:59, Graham King gra...@gkgk.org In 2. Requirements / point 2, it says Invisible mode is active only for the current session. Could it say .. only for the current *presence* session (as defined in RFC 6121 section 4.1)? I

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2014-07-15 Thread Graham King
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi, I have recently been working with XEP-0186, and I wanted to add notes from my experience. I think some minor clarifications around when invisibility stops could be added. In 2. Requirements / point 2, it says Invisible mode is active only for

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2014-07-06 Thread Christian Schudt
I might be too late to the party, 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

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2014-07-06 Thread Stefan Karlsson
I am also a bit too late but; how does this work with XEP 0184? /stefan Christian Schudt skrev 06/07/14 20:56: I might be too late to the party, 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

[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2014-06-20 Thread Kamil Kisiel
Apologies for not replying in the thread, I joined the list after it was posted so I'm not sure how to join the thread :) For some background: I'm part of a team working on a (currently) proprietary XMPP server and client. I have been working on the server side and was responsible for the

[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2014-06-19 Thread XMPP Extensions Editor
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0186 (Invisible Command). Abstract: This document specifies an XMPP-compatible protocol for user invisibility. URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0186.html This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2014-06-19 Thread Lance Stout
1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or to clarify an existing protocol? This is a feature that has received a lot of end-user requests, and we have no other good way to do it, so yes. If anyone is going to ever implement this feature, let's have a thought

[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)

2012-06-27 Thread XMPP Extensions Editor
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0186 (Invisible Command). Abstract: This document specifies an XMPP-compatible protocol for user invisibility. URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0186.html This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on