Carlo v. Loesch wrote: > Dave Cridland typeth: > | Whether that's true or not, protocols do not make political or moral > | statements, and nor should they. Protocols just enable what people > | want to do, whether you agree with that or not. There's a name for > > Yes, and this protocol just happens to enable you to watch the presence > of your contacts without revealing your own. I don't intend to say that > neither the designers of XMPP or those of IMPP intentionally planned it > that way, but that's the result.
Please keep your moralizing and psychologizing to yourself. Or shall we start a list such as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Using the existing subscription information isn't only the most > efficient strategy concerning network traffic and scalability, it also > improves transparency for the user, as she can rely upon being subscribed > to this or that - not silently having been excluded. > > | If we consider a case where no privacy lists were in use, and if we > > Since pretty much everyone considers privacy lists a not so successful > invention, They do? Evidence, please. I wrote XEP-0191 (Simple Communications Blocking) because I thought developers found privacy lists to be too complex, but when I really pushed the issue they said "oh no, really privacy lists are fine and we've all implemented that protocol, so let's move on already". > I don't think IESG would object a lot if we were to say > "We've been there, we wore that t-shirt, it didn't look good." Do you have a special way to divine the thinking of the IESG? I suppose you have written a lot of RFCs and have a deep understanding of how the IETF works. Feel free to share your insights into standardization with us newbies. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
