On 7 Sep 2016 11:22, "Kevin Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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).
So I was assuming that the first step would be pipelined, but I take your point - it's worth investigating, since it reduces the common case. > > /K > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
