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@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
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org