On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I agree too, FWIW. Thanks. /K
