[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0224 (Attention)

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Nov 12 15:21:27 CST 2008

Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Wed Nov 12 12:37:45 2008, Remko Tron�on wrote:
>> > In XEP-0115 you include a hashed features list into your presence
>> packet. This
>> > presence packet is the same for all you roster items (in fact, it's
>> > your server who broadcasts this packet).
>> Right, I was talking about using directed presence to these contacts.
>> I didn't say it was an easy solution, but that would be the 'protocol'
>> solution, albeit a horrible one.
>> It's much easier to do this type of filtering in the client itself
>> (it's just an <attention/> stanza), so I don't see any reason for
>> going into any more details. Just mentioning that the client should
>> allow a user to disable it is enough; at what granularity or any other
>> detail (such as maximum attention send rate and those crazy things) is
>> left to the client, and should be left out of protocol specs like
>> this.
> If I send you <attention/>, and your client doesn't honour it from me,
> should your client tell me? 

No. IMHO if you send me a message containing only the <attention/> data
and my client doesn't support the extension or is configured to ignore
it, then it SHOULD NOT send you any error notification.

> Or should it tell me if it did?

No. It's fire and forget. If I ignore you, then it's too bad for you.


Peter Saint-Andre

More information about the Standards mailing list