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

Michal vorner Vaner michal.vaner at kdemail.net
Wed May 17 18:53:45 UTC 2006


On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 06:51:37PM +0100, Richard Dobson 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.
> 
> What makes you suppose that? We usually prefer to look longer term when 
> developing protocols here, and prefer to develop solutions that will not 
> break or are against the existing protocol, we prefer to extend.
> 
> >| 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.
> 
> What I suggested effectively gives you this, it allows the sending 
> server to tell the receiving server exactly who should receive 
> something, rather than the receiving server having to guess and quite 
> possibly send it to someone who it shouldnt go to, either because it 
> might have been blocked, or because the roster states are simply out of 
> sync (or quite possibly for other reasons).
> 
> >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.
> 
> Just because its not convincing to you doesnt mean its not convincing 
> for the rest of us.
> 
> >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.
> 
> Well thats not up to you, the whole idea of privacy is that you can do 
> things that the other person does not know about, like blocking them.
> 

Another pro for the presence-out filter: If I do not want him to see me
just now, for, lets say, an hour, or I do not want him to see my
presence changes and want him to see me always as DND, then, the
presence-out may help. I just send him one direct DND and blouck it.

Could you do this with your way? I do not ask if you see it useful, what
user sees as useful is not up to developer, but up to the user.

-- 

Work with computer has 2 phases. First, computer waits for the user to tell it what 
to do, then the user waits for the computer to do it. Therefore, computer work 
consists mostly of waiting.

Michal "vorner" Vaner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20060517/0f646e99/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list