[jdev] Possible inconsistency with roster pushes

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Vinod Panicker wrote:
> 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.

What is the use case driving your desire to make this change? BTW, the
spec (both RFC 3921 and rfc3921bis) says this is a SHOULD (not MUST). If
you want to send roster pushes to active resources that have requested
the roster, feel free to do so on an experimental basis and report back
with your findings. I happen to think that the vast majority of clients
don't hang around in the active-but-not-available state, so I doubt that
there is a lot to be gained here. But again if you have some powerful
use cases, please do share them.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20071030/daa212a9/attachment-0002.bin>