[jdev] last presence confusion

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 12:23:38PM -0800, 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.
>> 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.
> On the other hand, usually just 1/3 of my roster is online. So if server
> starts sending presence for all contacts, initial "presence flood" from
> the server increases 3 times.

So do I take that as an objection to the modified text in rfc3921bis?

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/20080125/f200cdcf/attachment-0002.bin>