[Standards] RFC 6121 section 8.5 "active resource" and "Connected Resource"

Hi, Section 8.5.4 provides a summary of earlier sections. It uses the term "active resource" twice. This term is not used in any of the earlier sections. Conversely, the earlier sections use the term "Connected Resource" a couple of times. A "Connected Resource" is defined by RFC6121/6120 as "[has] bound a resource to the stream" Although the term "Connected Resource" is used in section 8.5, none of the specifications therein seem to apply to Connected Resources. The usage of the term "active resource" in section 8.5.4 could be an artifact of RFC3921/3920, which defines an "active resource" as: "Upon establishing a session, a connected resource (in the terminology of [XMPP-CORE]) is said to be an "active resource." Although section 8.5 advertises that it will define how stanzas related to connected resources are to be processed ("If there is at least one available resource or connected resource, how the stanza is processed depends on the stanza type.") it does not seem to do that. All definitions seem to depend on having at least one available resource (which is defined as a connected resource that has sent initial presence), leaving scenarios in which only connected resources are present, undefined. Am I misinterpreting this? If not, is this something that should be cleared up (or explicitly be left undefined)? As a practical example of a question that I believe is left unanswered: 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 believe that there are many possible variations on this question, I'm limiting it to one to illustrate the larger issue that I described in this email. For additional context: this was discussed in the XSF's Discussion MUC earlier. Logs of that conversation can be found at https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2025-05-28#2025-05-28-a5d887bd6428222c Kind regards, Guus