[Standards-JIG] proto-JEP: Smart Presence Distribution
hildjj at gmail.com
Wed May 17 21:37:10 UTC 2006
On May 17, 2006, at 3:05 PM, Carlo v. Loesch wrote:
> Michal vorner Vaner typeth:
> | to spent a long time debuging, the OK. But it could be without
> | the whole XMPP-CORE and XMPP-IM and without the relaying on the
> so if you think XMPP _HAS_ to have a to= field, not because it serves
> a purpose, but only because there once was a document that said that
> it has to have one, then sure we can have a to='servername' in there.
> i'd rather update the XMPP spec, but please we can do it your way.
No, we're saying that the spec has this restriction for good
reasons. There's no way in many implementations to get these packets
delivered to the right places if there isn't a to address. There are
problems on both the send side as well as the receive side.
The spec is right to require a to address, based on real
implementations. I don't understand why you're so opposed to just
putting the domain name of the server in the to address... I've got
other problems with the approach, but this seems like an odd place to
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 1883 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Standards