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

Joe Hildebrand 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  
> breaking
> | the whole XMPP-CORE and XMPP-IM and without the relaying on the  
> other's
> 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  
get stuck.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1883 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20060517/459b4167/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list