Matthew Wild wrote: > 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.
I don't particularly like where we ended up on resource generation. IMHO now it's too complicated, so I'd be +1 to your proposed change. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
