[Standards-JIG] Re: MUC presence issues

[Ian Paterson]

JD wrote:
> When [a server] receives an unavailable it has to broadcast it
> to all the places the user sent directed presence.
> The only time I really notice it is in the s2s case when a
> server goes down.
>   

Yes, you're right.

AFAICT (please correct me again if I'm wrong), RFC 3921 and RFC 3921bis 
do not provide for my server answering a presence probe that was sent on 
behalf of another user who is not subscribing to my presence, but who 
has received directed available presence from me.

Even so, I agree with you it would be a very good solution, with general 
applicability for the reliability of directed presence... and much 
better than the keep-alive alternative. :-) The request-response would 
double the s2s traffic when compared to keep-alive, but there would be 
no c2s traffic on either side... and clients would be kept simple.

So perhaps this can be added to section 4.3 of RFC 3921bis? It seems no 
presence leaks would occur as long as the user's server that sends the 
probe receives an error if the user has already received unavailable 
presence from me, and otherwise only receives an exact copy of the last 
directed presence stanza that my server sent to the user on my behalf.

- Ian