[Standards-JIG] Re: What happened to the ACK proposal?
s.devrieze at pandora.be
Tue Aug 16 19:16:42 UTC 2005
Op dinsdag 16 augustus 2005 00:57, schreef Justin Karneges:
> On Monday 15 August 2005 03:39 pm, Sander Devrieze wrote:
> > Op maandag 15 augustus 2005 23:49, schreef David Chisnall:
> > > On 15 Aug 2005, at 22:34, Sander Devrieze wrote:
> > > > What about "JEP-0079: Advanced Message
> > > > Processing" (http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0079.html)?
> > >
> > > This allows someone to detect if a message gets to my server, and my
> > > server puts it in the TCP-stream. If, however, my TCP connection has
> > > dropped then the message will be silently lost (as far as I can
> > > tell).
> > I don't think so. There are 3 options (as far as I can see):
> > * You will get a reply from the receiving server that says:
> > - Your message is stored offline.
> > - Your message is delivered to the sender (if he is online).
> > * You will get a bounce. (now you know there was a problem)
> > * You will get no answer. (now you know there was a problem (assumed that
> > JEP-0079 is made a MUST protocol))
> Actually, AMP as a way of ensuring delivery is rather worthless without
> JEP-Ack. For example, if the recipient lost his connection, then the
> recipient's server might deliver the message into a black hole and report
> success back to you.
I am not sure, but I think AMP works like this:
* If the user is offline: the server needs to answer and say that it is stored
offline on the server.
* If the user is online (or reported as online): the user's client needs to
answer that it received the message. So if the recipient list his connection,
you will not get an ACK from his *client*.
If this is not the case, the JEP maybe needs to be changed?
Mvg, Sander Devrieze.
xmpp:sander at devrieze.dyndns.org ( http://jabber.tk/ )
More information about the Standards