[jdev] last presence confusion

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Thursday 20 December 2007 2:52 pm, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>    2.  Else, if the contact has no available resources, the server MUST
>>        either (1) reply to the presence probe by sending to the user the
>>        full XML of the last presence stanza of type "unavailable"
>>        received by the server from the contact, or (2) not reply at all.
>>
>> So a nice server will return the last unavailable presence information
>> (with a Delayed Delivery flag), thus obviating the need for a flood of
>> jabber:iq:last requests.
> 
> The problem is that the server might choose the second option, which is to not 
> reply at all, and a client cannot know the difference between a slow server 
> or a no-reply server.  Thus, the client still has to make a decision to send 
> iq:last to everyone or to no one.
> 
> How about emphasizing the first option as a SHOULD?  This would hopefully 
> encourage new servers to always reply, while not causing existing servers to 
> become non-compliant.

That seems fine to me, adjusted in SVN:

http://svn.xmpp.org:18080/browse/XMPP/trunk/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-05.xml?%40diffMode=u&%40diffWrap=s&r1=1489&r2=1490&u=3&ignore=&k=

/psa