[Standards-JIG] JEP-0030 - Disco to resources
vinod.p at gmail.com
Sat Apr 29 06:20:57 UTC 2006
On 4/20/06, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Vinod Panicker wrote:
> > On 4/19/06, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >> Vinod Panicker wrote:
> >>> On 4/19/06, Ralph Meijer <jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 06:00:22PM +0530, Vinod Panicker wrote:
> >>>>> On 4/19/06, Ralph Meijer <jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:06:49AM +0530, Vinod Panicker wrote:
> > The disco jep currently forbids a request with no "to" address -
> > "the 'to' address is REQUIRED and MUST contain a valid JID"
> It could be sent to one's own bare JID, which I think it what we'd do.
> >>> Inferred from the various texts in the RFCs, connected and active
> >>> resources cannot receive messages, cannot receive directed iq's and
> >>> nor can they receive presence. I'll quote all of them and the reason
> >>> for inference if you wish. I'm far too tired to compile the list now
> >> Where did you infer this? RFC 3920 talks about delivery to such resources.
> > RFC 3921, Section 11.1 - Inbound stanzas only talks about delivery to
> > available resources - not active nor connected.
> But Section 10 of RFC 3920 applies to connected resources. RFC 3921 is
> for IM applications of XMPP, RFC 3920 is for any application.
Forgot about this thread :)
You mean to say that implementations of RFC 3921 will not allow
delivery of iq, message and presence stanzas to connected/active
resources, but implementations of RFC 3920 will?
How do we reconcile that in real-life applications?
More information about the Standards