[jdev] Possible inconsistency with roster pushes

[Vinod Panicker]

On 10/29/07, Tomasz Sterna <tomek at xiaoka.com> wrote:
> Dnia 29-10-2007, Pn o godzinie 12:17 +0100, Michal 'vorner' Vaner pisze:
> > No, it doesn't. Look at mcabber. You can be unavailable and still keep
> > the connection. You can even send messages from unavailable resource.
>
> You're right.
> I definitely need to sleep more.
>
> But I would rather call it "bound" not "active". There may be no
> activity on bound connection. :-)

The definition as per RFC is "active", hence I stated that.  I doubt
there's a need to define yet another state :-)

But really, a resource can ping-pong between active and available
states by sending presence stanzas of available and unavailable
respectively.

Instead of changing a particular implementation that does what seems
"right" and sends roster pushes to "active" resources instead of the
"available" ones, I'd like this to be part of the new spec - with
appropriate consensus, of course.

Regards,
Vinod.