[Standards] Link-Local Messaging comments
stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Apr 4 17:46:32 UTC 2007
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:
>>>> Might make sense to recommend. Also please document which status a
>>>> client which a status field has (salut currently assumes avail, gajim
>>> 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". :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards