(Well, this one was easy). On Wed Jan 7 21:29:32 2009, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
I think it is certainly needed to document an existing practise.
2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction and requirements?
The specification claims to document recommended handling, and I believe achieves this.
3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, why not?
N/A - Server Developer, sorry. I note that the specification is widely implemented.
4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
The only security issue I can think of is if the presentation could be used to spoof a message from another participant, or from the service.
Typically, clients display messages on exit such as "dwd has left", or "dwd has join the group chat" - it may be useful to alert implementors to ensuring that such messages cannot be spoofed by the user typing "/me has left", thus - perhaps - avoiding being kicked. This is the reason, I believe, behind the recommendation (and typical implementation) of prepending the nickname with a "*".
5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
It seems accurate, and clear. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected] - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
