[Standards] [Fwd: [Council] meeting minutes, 2007-05-16]

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Saturday 19 May 2007 3:05 pm, Ian Paterson wrote:
>> Justin Karneges wrote:
>>> I don't know if this needs to be a change to the RFC.  It could simply be
>>> a server feature.
>> Such a server feature could not conform to RFC 3921. Section 11.1 states:
>> "1. If the JID is of the form <user at domain/resource> and an available
>> resource matches the full JID, the recipient's server MUST deliver the
>> stanza to that resource."
> 
> This reminds me of another "MUST" that was discussed on the lists awhile back, 
> about how servers MUST presence probe all contacts in a user's roster when 
> the user signs on.
> 
> In these cases, I don't think implementations should be required to follow the 
> text to the letter.  It is enough to recognize the spirit of the text: what 
> is it trying to accomplish?  What are the expectations?
> 
> Yes, the RFC text says that the stanza "MUST" be delivered to the target 
> resource.  However, is it a violation if the target resource has delegated 
> its server to accept and handle the stanza in the same way it would have done 
> on its own?  I don't think so.  If the server were to drop the stanza or 
> deliver it to the wrong destination, then I would call that a violation.  
> Having the server act on the client's behalf is an optimization, and stays 
> true to the spirit of the "MUST".

It's not clear to me what change you are suggesting.

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/20070525/2ff33d8f/smime.bin