[Standards-JIG] JEP-0045 (MUC) - IQ Stanza Semantics
jabber at dsutton.legend.uk.com
Wed Feb 25 20:24:08 UTC 2004
May I also point out this is potentially a large abuse of bandwidth -
Take the scenario where a user leaves a room which has 100 people in it.
If the leaving client has to be sent unavailable presence for all the
other users in the room, we're talking a total of 101 incoming presence
packets, along with another going out to everyone in the room - 201
presence packets just because someone wanted to leave.
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 04:41, Richard Dobson wrote:
> > I don't say current MUC specification is not compliant with XMPP, but
> > the presence usage is not quite consistent with typical XMPP usage of
> > presence.
> Actually no I dont think you are right, in normal presence when you send
> unavailable to someone you dont immediately get an unavailable back from
> Also because MUC is using directed presence and not normal presence it is
> operating exactly as it is supposed to, in directed presence when you
> receive unavailable from someone that means they no longer want to be
> notified of your presence AFAIK, which is why unavailables from the MUC room
> will never be returned to you, this is how groupchat has always worked and
> no one else has had any problem with it AFAIK.
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards