On 7/8/13 4:23 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > > On 8 Jul 2013 04:32, "Kevin Smith" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> In 191, if A as blocked B, B's presences to A should be dropped. Any >> directed presence from A to B should be bounced. I can't see a >> description of what should happen for A's broadcast presence - by a >> literal reading of the XEP it seems to be unaffected (or I've missed >> something). >> > > I think that it should be covered by the contact sending a stanza to the > user. If you read contact as meaning a client session exclusively, and > not the internal account maintained by the server, then I see where you > get your reading from, but that then includes PEP, and is confusing in > the light of the requirement to send unavailable presence. > > That is, the intent is very clear, but the precise phrasing could use > some more clarity.
Dave, I agree with your interpretation. Suggestions for clarification are welcome. I'll try to look at it soon and propose some text. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
