Remko wrote: > > under 'incoming IQ requests' for 2 reasons: they're not 'incoming' , > > and they're not 'requests'. > > I take one of both back, since the XEP talks about IQ stanzas, not > requests. The conclusion remains the same, though: the server should not > block them ;-) > I thought we had established "incoming" means incoming from the client's POV. Thus even a iq from the server is incoming. I suspect that we need clearer text in any case though (after we are sure what behaviour we expect ;) )
- Re: [Standards] RFC vs privacy lists Yann Leboulanger
- Re: [Standards] RFC vs privacy lists Dave Cridland
- Re: [Standards] RFC vs privacy lists Yann Leboulanger
- Re: [Standards] RFC vs privacy lists Matthew Wild
- Re: [Standards] RFC vs privacy lists Evgeniy Khramtsov
- Re: [Standards] RFC vs privacy lists Dave Cridland
- Re: [Standards] RFC vs privacy lists Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Standards] RFC vs privacy lists Kevin Smith
- Re: [Standards] RFC vs privacy lists Remko Tronçon
- Re: [Standards] RFC vs privacy lists Remko Tronçon
- Re: [Standards] RFC vs privacy lists Florian Zeitz
- Re: [Standards] RFC vs privacy lists Remko Tronçon
- Re: [Standards] RFC vs privacy lists Yann Leboulanger
- Re: [Standards] RFC vs privacy lists Matthew Wild
- Re: [Standards] RFC vs privacy lists Yann Leboulanger
- Re: [Standards] RFC vs privacy lists Evgeniy Khramtsov
- Re: [Standards] RFC vs privacy lists Matthew Wild
