[Standards-JIG] Directed presence -> subscribed -> unsubscribed -> ???

Nolan Eakins sneakin at semanticgap.com
Tue Nov 29 21:59:22 UTC 2005


Tomasz Sterna wrote:

>I personally think, that the whole directed-presence support on server
>is unnecessary burden and it should be discouraged.
>  
>
Directed presence is required for services such as MUC. So it's a little 
late to discourage its use.

>When you do hack your presence state sending directed presences, you
>are creating an unpredictable presence-space over you. There is no
>reliable way of determining which contacts see what presence of yours.
>Even if you do track directed-presence client-level, what about other resources?
>  
>
What about other resources? Presence is per resource. If I send an 
available presence to Ceaser, who's not in my roster, from "/Home", I 
don't expect him to know if I'm online from "/Senate".

Personally though, I don't see how it is unpredictable.

>I do agree, that directed-presence might be a usefull hack,
>but I don't think we should encourage using it,
>by supportinging any more sophisticated server support for it, than
>"just don't process directed presence, and forward it as-is".
>  
>
The server needs to track it so you don't haunt the network with ghosts. 
That's why the RFC says what it says.

- Nolan



More information about the Standards mailing list