On 06/04/2008 9:59 AM, Paul Witty wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> To make my life easier, something could be added to XEP-0166 saying that >>> clients supporting Jingle should support XEP-0155, or even something >>> similar to XEP-0155 but much lighter weight. >>> >> >> I'm all ears. :) >> >> > I'm going to go with supporting XEP-0155, if the client wants to be able > to accept Jingle sessions from those with which it is not sharing > presence. The initiator should then send a message to initiate the > session, with 'presence' and 'service-discovery' fields, each of which > only have the option 'must'. The client can then accept this XEP-0155 > session silently, and offer the user the usual notification of an > incoming Jingle session, thereby having leaked presence, or have the > user explicitly accept the XEP-0155 session, and then also accept the > Jingle session which follows, in order to only bother the user once. > Which of these behaviours (or the alternative, rejecting the XEP-0155 > session) is up to the client/user.
That seems reasonable. I will add the "service-discovery" field to XEP-0155 and ask the Council to approve that change. BTW it is also possible to share directed presence with a contact in the absence of a formal presence subscription, so that would result in knowledge about service discovery capabilities if the presence stanzas are annotated with XEP-0115 data. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
