* Kevin Smith <[email protected]> [2016-09-07 11:28]: > I think there’s two blocks of data. One is capabilities, which we > already have a mechanism for sorting out, so I think it’d make sense > to re-use here (and this is already public).
+1 to that. > The second is the effective blocklist. It’s clear this shouldn’t go > into presence. > > Perhaps the ‘blocklist’ stanza can come first, so the blocklists are > prepopulated for the session when presence is then (immediately, > presumably) received and the capability-based stuff kicks in. That would work well if the 'blocklist' is sent explicitly. If we use a caps-like mechanism for blocklist maintenance, we get into crazy situations when PAM can't immediately resolve the blocklist hash, but the presence has arrived at the server already. If we use an explicit blocklist, everything should be fine, I suppose. Georg -- || http://op-co.de ++ GCS d--(++) s: a C+++ UL+++ !P L+++ !E W+++ N ++ || gpg: 0x962FD2DE || o? K- w---() O M V? PS+ PE-- Y++ PGP+ t+ 5 R+ || || Ge0rG: euIRCnet || X(+++) tv+ b+(++) DI+++ D- G e++++ h- r++ y? || ++ IRCnet OFTC OPN ||_________________________________________________||
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
