[Standards-JIG] Re: Presence priority Question

Vinod Panicker vinod.p at gmail.com
Sat Feb 4 10:10:26 UTC 2006


On 2/4/06, Remko Troncon <remko at el-tramo.be> wrote:
>
> On 04 Feb 2006, at 5:18, Vinod Panicker wrote:
>
> > IMO, the spec should say that a client SHOULD not set a priority
> > greater than 0.  If it does set a priority greater than 0, it has to
> > detect using suitable mechanisms when and if the user of the client
> > has gone "away" and MUST drop the priority down back to 0 or a
> > negative value.
> >
> > This should prevent the problem that Venkat is talking about.
>
> That would not help at all, since servers can still deliver to any of
> the connected clients. *If* a rule should be changed, it should be
> the stanza delivery rule, and it should say "If multiple entities
> have the same highest priority, the message should be delivered to
> all of them".

This is already there in the RFC - section 11.1.4.1 - and its taken
care of by the servers.

The problem is that a "rogue" client might set a high priority for
itself, even when the user is away, thereby causing false deliveries.

Regards,
Vinod.



More information about the Standards mailing list