[Standards-JIG] proto-JEP: Smart Presence Distribution
melo at co.sapo.pt
Wed May 17 22:39:39 UTC 2006
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
>> | 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.
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.
HIId: Pedro Melo
SMTP: melo at co.sapo.pt
XMPP: pedro.melo at sapo.pt
More information about the Standards