[Standards] Jingle initiate and resource determination

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Jun 7 13:04:52 CDT 2007


Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Lauri Kaila wrote:
>>> 2007/6/5, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org>:
>>>> Lauri Kaila wrote:
>>>> > I was trying to sort out Jingle initiation when someone has many
>>>> > clients (resources) online. XEP-0168 (RAP) is created for that
>>>> > situation, but does it always work so that the initiation goes where
>>>> > the receiver wants?
>>>>
>>>> We had some relevant discussion starting here:
>>>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2007-March/014046.html
>>>
>>> That's Interesting. If that approach was selected, would it be
>>> possible to send a stanza to many resources simulteneously? I.e. fork
>>> session-initiate. Then either server or initiator must deal with many
>>> responses, which can be tricky, but maybe it would be a good trade.
>>
>> One idea that Joe Hildebrand and I have been kicking around is for 
>> messages of type "headline" to be sent to all online resources. This 
>> would give you forking but only for that message type and not for IQs 
>> (which are sent to full JIDs). So in order to start a Jingle session 
>> with me where I'm not in your roster, the flow would be:
>>
>> 1. You send a stanza session negotiation request (XEP-0155) in a 
>> message of type headline.
>>
>> 2. My server delives it to all of my online resources.
>>
>> 3. I reply from whichever resource I want to use right now.
>>
>> 4. You send a Jingle session-initiate (IQ) to that resource.
>>
>> /me ponders...
>>
>> Peter
>>
> 
> 
> both 3921 and bis :
> "
> headline -- The message is probably generated by an automated service 
> that delivers or broadcasts content (news, sports, market information, 
> syndicated content, etc.). No reply to the message is expected, and a 
> compliant client SHOULD present the message in an interface that 
> appropriately differentiates the message from standalone messages, chat 
> sessions, or groupchat sessions (e.g., by not providing the recipient 
> with the ability to reply).
> "

Yes I know. I'm wondering if we want to specify special processing of 
headline messages by servers (i.e., deliver to all available resources).

> you might want to revisit this.
> Also, we special case headline in context of amp w.r.t archiving and 
> offline storage (if client does not support amp and our server does) : 
> since it is typically used currently for alerts, notifications, etc by 
> our bots.

Right, a lot of servers do that. The RFCs don't say anything about 
offline storage and I think that's as it should be. Headline messages 
are discussed a bit here:

http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0160.html#types

But that doesn't say anything about how they are delivered to available 
resources.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
XMPP Standards Foundation
http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml

-------------- 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/20070607/4df535f9/smime.bin


More information about the Standards mailing list