13 Jun
2025
13 Jun
'25
1:08 p.m.
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.
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?
On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 8:46 PM Tedd Sterr <teddsterr(a)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(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org