On 6/13/25 5:08 AM, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
> Ah, yes, that seems very relevant, thank you!
>
> As RFC 6120 does not describe "presence sessions", it doesn't describe
> "Available Resources" either (as those are closely related to presence).
> That's all in RFC 6121. In that reasoning, it makes sense to look back
> at RFC 6120 to find specifications related to "Connected
> Resources" (rather than "Available Resources".
>
> Two things do not sit well with me:
>
>   * The usage of the term "active resource" in RFC 6121, which appears
>     to be an artifact of RFC 3920/3921. I believe that term should not
>     be used at all in RFC 6121.
>   * The section titles in RFC 6121 suggest that specifications are
>     provided for "Connected Resources", which they do not appear to do
>     at all.

Ah, I see what you mean - I think the one instance of "active resource"
in the table within Section 8.5.4 of RFC 6121 is a typo (a holdover from
RFC 3921, as you say) - it should be "available resource".

> Would it be appropriate to suggest editorial changes to the RFC, in an
> attempt to remove some ambiguity? Does such a mechanism even exist for RFCs?

One can file errata against an RFC, but they are not incorporated until
and unless the RFC is replaced by a new one (at least if they are "held
for document update", as they usually are). In the case of RFCs 6120 and
6121, I haven't heard that anyone has volunteered to take on that task!
It might make sense to do that eventually given that we have defined new
ways to handle authentication and the like, but the process might
require a new working group and that involves a lot of effort and
overhead...

Peter


>
>
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 8:46 PM Tedd Sterr <teddsterr@outlook.com
> <mailto:teddsterr@outlook.com>> wrote:
>
>      > How should a server process a message stanza of type 'normal',
>     addressed to a bare JID that represents a local user (the scenario
>     of section 8.5.2.1.1 of RFC 6121) if the corresponding user only has
>     one or more Connected Resources (but not any Available Resources)?
>
>     I think that RFC 6120 §10.5.3.2 covers this:
>
>      > For a message stanza, if there exists *at least one connected
>     resource* for the account then the server SHOULD *deliver it to at
>     least one of the connected resources*. If there exists *no connected
>     resource* then the server MUST either (a) *store the message offline
>     for delivery* when the account next has a connected resource
>     *or* (b) *return a <service-unavailable/> stanza error* (Section
>     8.3.3.19).
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org <mailto:standards@xmpp.org>
>     To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
>     <mailto:standards-leave@xmpp.org>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org