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

Philipp Hancke fippo at goodadvice.pages.de
Thu May 18 07:27:30 UTC 2006


Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>> 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.

Under the following assumptions
* direct connection between the two servers without any intermediate
   devices (http://www.xmpp.org/specs/rfc3920.html#arch-overview)
* XMPP 1.0 stream (for stream:features)
* stream:to and stream:from present (see xmppbis notes)
* no piggybacking (it seems odd to me to send and receive for domains
                    other than the two contained in the stream header)

what problems arise from omitting 'to' on the wire, e.g. the ---
between S1 and S2?
You can strip it immediately before sending and add it again directly
after receiving.

> 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.

Indeed. If that makes you happier we can put the domain name of the 
remote server in the 'to'. Possibly adding 'distributeitplease'
resource not to break anything.

In turn, would you please start to put the domain name of your local
server in the 'to' field if you intend to do a presence broadcast? ;-)



More information about the Standards mailing list