On 7 Sep 2016, at 10:20, Georg Lukas <[email protected]> wrote: > > * Kevin Smith <[email protected]> [2016-09-07 11:19]: >> It’s not clear to me that another stanza is necessary, and that this >> can’t come out of normal caps handling by the server. It’s probably >> not the end of the world to have one, but I think I would be inclined >> to start investigating things in terms of the traditional caps >> mechanism, and then upgrade to a new stanza when we find it’s needed. >> I’m relatively low-F on this (maybe 4ish). > > I think the biggest problem with adding this to caps is privacy. You > don't want your MIX whitelist/blacklist to leak to third parties, and it > will be a significant amout of work on the server to rewrite all caps > and presence stanzas from a client to filter that out.
This is right (crossing wires between the MUC and here). I think I would rather that the basic stuff happened immediately on caps presence, and that additional filtering beyond purely capabilities came in a second stanza, so that in the usual case you're not adding yet another request/response to the login (which I know doesn't need to be a roundtrip). /K _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
