Ellenor MalikRFC 6120, 13.10.1. Any particular reason?
MattJEllenor Malik: IP addresses can leak various information, such as your location
Ellenor Malikthat doesn't stop other protocols from doing it.
MattJThat doesn't mean it's a good thing :)
Ellenor Malikthere isn't a reason for it to be a MUST NOT. STRONGLY DISCOURAGED for the reasons you describe (which I agree with, by the way, it's why I've loaded the cloaking module on my IRC server, to reduce the granularity of the hostname display) would make total sense, but MUST NOT does not.
MattJWell in the 9 years since publication I don't recall anyone so far who has said "I wish the RFC allowed making my users' IP addresses public"
Ellenor Malikit's sort of a spitball
Ellenor Malikalso, would including an ad hoc that would allow the user to disclose their IP of their own volition violate the RFC? since it's the user disclosing and not technically the server...?
MattJThere are cases where the IP is already disclosed directly and indirectly by the client
MattJWhen you do a direct file transfer your client will typically try to obtain your external IP and send it to the recipient (the recipient may also do the same)
MattJAnd indirectly through fetching HTTP upload shares, though that doesn't happen over the XMPP channel
MattJAnd yeah, if the client and server negotiate that revealing the IP address is ok, I think that's fine
Ellenor Malikit would make more sense for the MUC specification to require directly-used clients (like gajim, conversations, etc) to implement a MUC block feature so you can at least do nick-based ignores like on IRC
Link MauveMany clients do that already, why would you require that kind of thing in the specification?
Ellenor Malikshow me one, because none of the clients I have encountered do that.
Ellenor MalikJarkko is probably gonna call the XSF in the next 10 years and just be like "y'all could use the Q:line that I put in Internet Relay"
Ellenor MalikUmbrellix will become the Eris of Jabber.