[Standards-JIG] proto-JEP: Smart Presence Distribution

Jean-Louis Seguineau jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Wed May 17 15:39:47 UTC 2006


Carlo v. Loesch wrote"
>I thought a quickstart to happiness with a seriously simple JEP
>already helps us a lot, considering that these presence fan outs
>are the highest load on the XMPP network from what I saw on some
>statistics. Obviously excessive users of presence-out wouldn't be
>exactly useful to the process, but I suppose a majority of users
>never makes use of that function.

I am rather puzzled by this entire paragraph. This must be the philosophical
content ;) Seriously, can you provide metrics and statistics to sustain your
traffic observations? I personally have a different experience, and the list
would certainly be interested in understanding better the context in which
you came to these conclusions. 

Jean-Louis

P.S. End user behavior is a grey area and could be modeled in many different
ways. Maybe you could help us understand better by explaining the context in
which you have made your observations, maybe describe the kind of service
you are referring to, etc...  

-----Original Message-----
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 16:27:50 +0200 (CEST)
From: CvL at mail.symlynX.com (Carlo v. Loesch)
Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] proto-JEP: Smart Presence Distribution
To: Jabber protocol discussion list <standards-jig at jabber.org>
Message-ID: <200605171427.k4HERoc30692 at fly.symlynX.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Richard Dobson typeth:
| Would it not be better to create a protocol that works correctly when 
| privacy lists are in place? And still reduces the bandwidth?

I thought a quickstart to happiness with a seriously simple JEP
already helps us a lot, considering that these presence fan outs
are the highest load on the XMPP network from what I saw on some
statistics. Obviously excessive users of presence-out wouldn't be
exactly useful to the process, but I suppose a majority of users
never makes use of that function.

| Something like JEP-0033 but where instead of including all the addresses 
| in each stanza you negotiate a distribution list with the remote server 
| and just send the stanza to that distribution list that in turn 
| distributes the stanza to all the people i.e.

I'd rather see presence-out settings communicated to the other side
so the receiving server takes care of not forwarding the information.
Just like it is done with presence subscription exchange.

And now let me go a little beyond, just philosophically...

Generally the presence-out filter idea isn't really convincing me.
I'm more advocate for the sincerity option: If you're not going to
share your presence with me, be honest about it and send me a real
unsubscription.
 
We're not Friendster or Myspace. We can't afford people to click into
friendships with everyone, then quickly switch on filters for privacy.
Being in each other's roster must be a position of privilege which
comes at a price, the price of giving the other insight into your life.
Otherwise rosters will just grow exponentially with time.

Also I have the impression when somebody puts you in <presence-out/>
you no longer see him on the roster, thus you forget that you still
keep sending him presence every day. How unfair is that? One person
decides to retain privacy and gets an even better chance to peek on
the habits of the other? Correct me if I got something wrong, but I
would want to know if the other side has put me on presence-out.

-lynX





More information about the Standards mailing list