XSF Discussion - 2023-05-06

Hmm, I wonder why pubsub#notification_type is part of the node configuration instead of the subscription configuration

Is there any reason why the "XEP-0319: Last User Interaction in Presence" payload could not be included in an "unavailable" presence?

Relatedly, are <status>es forbidden in "unavailable" presences?

They are not forbidden ✏

OK, I thought so but I wondered if there was tribal knowledge about it that I should be aware of :). FWIW I'm asking because gajim parses neither the status nor the <idle> when ptype=unavailable, or at least it does not display it in the UI. ✏

does the server store extended infos in an unavailable presence?

I don't know about current implementations, for example Prosody does not (though probably there is a plugin...). I know that in the past some servers definitely did.

It was possible to sign off with a status like "on vacation", and your contacts would see it while you were offline

With the shift to everyone being online all of the time, that became relatively uncommon of course

splitting '478 hairs here... what if a server advertizes max-bytes < 10000? assume max-bytes == 10000? ignore it? </stream>? dos the server until it's fixed?

Undefined Behavior, here be dragons, dunno

Why would 10000 be a special value when the server can advertize its maximum?

I suppose it would be best to respect that.

Like, what are you supposed to do if max-bytes = 1

pep.: the RFC says so 🤷

mjk, extensions do many things that aren't in the RFC :)

XEPs can override what the RFC says, so eh.

Doing so without some kind of negotiation is meh tho

> XEPs can override what the RFC says, so eh. what a blasphemy ✏

And this is advertising, rather than negotiation, if there's such a distinction

right

What are the options anyway? Ignore, get </stream>, vs respect and maybe not work right?

Best to respect the RFC when it says > A _deployed_ server's maximum stanza size MUST NOT be smaller than 10000 bytes

Why would a server advertize 1 anyway? What would that achieve apart from not being able to communicate

Because silly admin configures it that way?

Yeah and they'll realize sooner or later that their users can't use the service

I'd rather have it fail explicitely this way than ignore the issue and let the admin believe their config is alright

Does the XEP need to forbid such configuration/deployment?

I don't remember any text explicitly saying that you're free to advertise max-bytes <10k, the RFC says don't put the limit there, so one could argue that that shouldn't happen.

I guess you can SHOULD/RECOMMEND a minimum value (same as the RFC?) But if there's a way for servers to advertize their max limit I'd vote for respecting it

tl;di (too long, didn't implement)

0060 ?