[Standards] Messages to unsubscribed contacts and resources

[Robin Redeker]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:28:55AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Robin Redeker wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > Some days ago I had a mail discussion on the jdev@ mailing list
> > about messages to unsubscribed contacts and contacts in general.
> > Tomasz said that messages should generally go to the bare JID instead of
> > the full JID, and that the local routing is up to the server.
> > 
[.snip.]
> > Please also note that the term 'chat session' in that paragraph is quite
> > undefined, or at least it's meaning is a bit fuzzy to me.
> 
> At its simplest, I think this is a chat session:
> 
[.interesting examples snipped.]

Thanks for the examples, that was what I thought was the other
option.

> 
> The sharing of directed presence gives both parties more knowledge about
> availability, but I think it should be initiated by the recipient (and
> subject to client prompt on a per-session basis, or configuration in the
> client to auto-share directed presence).
> 
> > And is somewhere described how full JIDs and <thread> play together? If at all?
> 
> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0201.html

Thanks :)

> > If routing is up to the local server side, makes it sense to reveal
> > resources at all? Wasn't there a progress towards randomized resources?
> 
> http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3920bis-04.html#bind-servergen

Nice :)

[.snip.]
> 
> IMHO, threads are *not* required to have a chat session.

Ok.

> > But before I can implement anything resembling 'chat sessions' that
> > term must be more explictly defined.
> 
> See above for an example. I can easily write a formal definition too.

Well, that example was what I imagined what a 'chat session' would be.
I don't know how important this is for others, I guess most client
developers don't have a problem with this.

> > Of course, If I don't have to keep track of the resources, that would
> > _greatly_ simplify everything for me. Just sending to the bare JID and
> > leaving the rest up to <thread> and the contacts routing settings
> > would make enormous sense to me.
> 
> Sending every message to the bare JID is not the custom.

Ok.

> > Back to section 5.1.1, the sections somehow contradicts the section
> > 8.3.1.1 (Message):
> > 
> >    For a message stanza of type "chat", "error", "groupchat", or
> >    "normal", the server SHOULD deliver the stanza to the
> >    highest-priority available resource.
> > 
> > That 'feature' only makes sense if at least the initial message goes to
> > a bare JID. But if it is routed to a resource by the server and I have
> > no knowledge about the presence of that resource (eg. if I'm not
> > subscribed), where should the next message go to, to the full JID I
> > received a reply from? 
> 
> You should keep sending to the bare JID until you receive a reply from a
> full JID, then start sending to the full JID.

Ok, that makes much sense with the behaviour described in the URL you posted below.

> 
> > Will my messages, if that contacts resource goes
> > offline, be dropped without my knowledge?
> 
> No, they will probably go to offline storage, because of this:
> 
> http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-04.html#rules-fulljid-availnomatch
> 
> I agree that these customary practices are not spelled out very well, so
> I will fix that in the next version of rfc3921bis.

I guess that would be a nice addition.


Thanks!
   Robin


-- 
Robin Redeker                         | Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
elmex at ta-sa.org / r.redeker at gmail.com | http://www.deliantra.net
http://www.ta-sa.org/                 |