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

Pedro Melo melo at co.sapo.pt
Wed May 17 22:39:39 UTC 2006


Hi,

On May 17, 2006, at 10:37 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> 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.

I believe that if both servers negotiate the meaning of lacking a  
"to" to mean the domain under which the s2s was negotiated we are fine.

> 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.

This would work also, of course. And yes, it's an odd discussion  
point for me to.

Best regards,
--
HIId: Pedro Melo
SMTP: melo at co.sapo.pt
XMPP: pedro.melo at sapo.pt




More information about the Standards mailing list