On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Simon McVittie <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17/07/12 00:26, Lance Stout wrote: >> The reason value is really just a hint or suggestion > > Yes, that was my intention when I wrote the XEP. It seems a bit more > user-friendly if you can hint at the reason for requesting de-cloaking: > > /---------------------------------------\ > | Alice <[email protected]> is asking | > | whether you are currently online, but | > | is not on your contact list. | > | [ Reveal presence ] [ Ignore ] | > \---------------------------------------/ > > ("what do I do about that?!") vs. > > /---------------------------------------------\ > | Alice <[email protected]> wants to | > | call you, but is not on your contact list. | > | Allowing the call to be started will reveal | > | that you are currently online. | > | [ Reveal presence ] [ Ignore ] | > \---------------------------------------------/ > > ("oh, this is just an incoming call from someone I don't know, I know > what to think about that").
Right, I had assumed that. However, I'm not sure the protocol and the UI tie in as closely as might first appear (given that a malicious entity would just pick the session type most likely to be accepted). That is: The UI could say"Alice wants to start a conversation with you - this will reveal that you're online. [Reveal] [Ignore]" or whatever. Including a machine-readable indication of what's going to happen afterwards seems appealing - but ultimately I'm not sure that it helps (and it introduces additional complexity and need for extensibility and ...). /K
