[Standards] Link-Local Messaging comments

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Sjoerd Simons wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 11:40:13AM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> Sjoerd Simons wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:47:16PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> status
>>>> Might make sense to recommend. Also please document which status a 
>>>> client which a status field has (salut currently assumes avail, gajim 
>>>> offline)
>>> You mean the default status?
>> An implementor pinged me about this. Although the spec says the lack of 
>> a status TXT record should be assumed as equivalent to "avail", I now 
>> think it should be "offline". That is, you can be publishing TXT records 
>>  but not be available for link-local communications. So we should 
>> assume that someone is unavailable unless we positively determine otherwise.
> 
> What does offline mean pratically. That i shouldn't start xmpp connections to
> that client at all or just no text messages or ?
> 
> I've got no problems with specifying that no status record means
> offline/unavailable as long as a know what that actually means :)

I think offline here means "don't open an XML stream to me" (for 
whatever reason). But then the question arises: why even advertise TXT 
records and _presence._tcp if you don't want to communicate?

I see that iChat supported only "avail", "away", and "dnd" as values for 
the status TXT record. That almost maps to XMPP <show/> (no "xa" or 
"chat" in TXT, no "avail" in <show/>). So perhaps "status" is 
effectively <show/> and should default to bare presence, which is 
"avail" in the TXT record universe.

Thus maybe I have changed my mind back to "avail". :)

/psa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070404/bb04a8b6/smime-0001.bin