[Standards-JIG] Re: What happened to the ACK proposal?

Justin Karneges justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com
Tue Aug 16 19:38:46 UTC 2005

On Tuesday 16 August 2005 12:16 pm, Sander Devrieze wrote:
> 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?

Yes, this is where your confusion is.  With AMP, the ACK reply is sent by the 
server, not the client.

Skimming the JEP again, I can see that this is not very clear, but consider 
this text from section 1.2: 'This protocol is mostly handled by the server or 
servers processing the <message/>.'  Also, 'Upon receipt of an appropriately 
marked message, the server interprets the rules in the order they are 
received, looking for met conditions.'  Section 2.1.2:  'the ruleset applies 
only to the "edge servers": those servers to which the sending and receiving 
entities are connected.'

Personally, I think AMP is fine the way it is.  With JEP-Ack, we solve several 
problems, including those with AMP.  No need for AMP to solve these things on 
its own, creating unnecessary overlap.


More information about the Standards mailing list