[Standards-JIG] Chat Session Negotiation

Jean-Louis Seguineau jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Thu Jan 5 09:41:12 UTC 2006


Thomas,

Agreed. I would not deny this. In an XMPP only context this is one possible
way of looking at it. And in such context a well behaved client may probably
clean up all negotiated message sessions prior to logging out/appearing
offline. Or put it this way, this is what I would require a proper client to
do ;)

What I was hinting at was more in a context where XMPP and other protocols
need to be bridged through some gateway. Mixing messages and presences would
add complexity by forcing the GW to be statefull.

Best

Jean-Louis

-----Original Message-----
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 14:06:28 -0500
From: Thomas Charron <twaffle at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] Chat Session Negotiation
To: Jabber protocol discussion list <standards-jig at jabber.org>
Message-ID:
	<30dfe2a80601041106v784a3e45l8c7b82068072fed5 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


Maybe I am mis-interpreting the post, but I would stick to using only
> <message/> as a transport. The re-negotiation in relation to certain
> presence changes should in my opinion be left to a particular
> client/gateway
> implementation and expressed using messages. Adding <presence/> to the mix
> would in my opinion only introduce complexity, and add difficulty when
> mapping with other protocols.


  But, doesn't an offline presence message infer a BYE?  ;-)

  Thomas




More information about the Standards mailing list