-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 14-06-11 11:29 AM, Lance Stout wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2014, at 11:16 AM, Graham King <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Is this a correct reading? From the code I think this is how Prosody 
>> interprets it, and it makes intuitive sense (to me at least!). If this 
>> reading is correct, could I submit a patch to the XEP to clarify?
> 
> 
> Sounds right. Send a patch.
> 
> —Lance
> 

Great. Here it is, attached.

Graham
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTmLHTAAoJEBJ8/NmzuSnSB1QP/0EnwKIChJHYQCj0BTipACL4
W9AbioYlfXKepsw7AC0iK8/RO5IBGwEYUHZcM9MCMQd4AgnujQJXyvWXI+TLS3dH
bBRsidEd7XITQHcPp6gjQcabNDYHOk4Wl3IAwOBaaGKvZU5zwq8E/YHsPEmmYFp/
NUoLdClJ64gDSt/ODLHtpx42oCtg7whRi69/DUkiqORTgL6yCLUwSuM1MUFV9v8O
Z7ryH9GWus2Lu0vDWxt44tz7JuP3UKkRHeZthhqhtjUix95Iz1dcU7BUV4pauYlO
KGrYwTbtAmhS3b1BIS2FoeJFECmQgRyO9uBMHRNZl/x6oX6RMV8itvp4LEXV69C2
luLNgkWlsNDH8/G6vf/lnAIzYOrKmVv/0PsgppFIYIwvdrqoNBxGwDKiyihssjw6
h6oIEWevVJTQ0qWjliUFKxHQl7mK3y2eCeO3WEVnd/90idiLr1ZngSjNKuX8e60J
CFxZqdIB56hDLZ9C5RXMIYFOPHlrbKoJOxZiwQwwK4IaElJtdSwXlTEBbqmoMwi5
AiqBS9qyijPJX0xtnElkRxcv/acjDoJ75WsXjlOoKfZ6tQdiHQPDzZ8dKYmcs8m9
ytaAniPNa90KNUrzi7GaJdXFZCsW12yT5C60/9ST7ZRX95OYvP3DWkVTePVMLwCS
syeTfydTE23zJ/oo8SIM
=/l4e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
diff --git a/extensions/xep-0030.xml b/extensions/xep-0030.xml
index aaf4538..ac3c023 100644
--- a/extensions/xep-0030.xml
+++ b/extensions/xep-0030.xml
@@ -674,14 +674,14 @@
         <p>In response to a disco#info request, the server MUST return a &unavailable; error if one of the following is true:</p>
         <ol>
           <li>The target entity does not exist (no matter if the request specifies a node or not).</li>
-          <li>The requesting entity is not authorized to receive presence from the target entity (i.e., via a presence subscription of type "both" or "from") or is not otherwise trusted (e.g., another server in a trusted network).</li>
+          <li>The requesting entity is not authorized to receive presence from the target entity (i.e., via the target having a presence subscription to the requesting entity of type "both" or "from") or is not otherwise trusted (e.g., another server in a trusted network).</li>
         </ol>
       </li>
       <li>
         <p>In response to a disco#items request, the server MUST return an empty result set if:</p>
         <ol>
           <li>The target entity does not exist (no matter if the request specifies a node or not).</li>
-          <li>The request did not specify a node, the only items are available resources (as defined in <cite>RFC 3921</cite>), and the requesting entity is not authorized to receive presence from the target entity (i.e., via a presence subscription of type "both" or "from") or is not otherwise trusted (e.g., another server in a trusted network). <note>However, the server MAY return items other than available resources (if any).</note></li>
+          <li>The request did not specify a node, the only items are available resources (as defined in <cite>RFC 3921</cite>), and the requesting entity is not authorized to receive presence from the target entity (i.e., via the target having a presence subscription to the requesting entity of type "both" or "from") or is not otherwise trusted (e.g., another server in a trusted network). <note>However, the server MAY return items other than available resources (if any).</note></li>
         </ol>
       </li>
     </ol>

Attachment: xep-0030-security-clarification.patch.sig
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to