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

Mridul mridul at sun.com
Tue May 30 09:59:31 UTC 2006

Hi Richard,

  Catching up on my mails ... Good to know that what I was thinking was
not smoke !
The proto-JEP authors seem to be alluding to some more JEP's to come ,
maybe this change we discussed does not fit into the 'vision' for the
"JEP set" :-)

One Q though , can you please clarify why it would need to be a disco
and not a stream feature ?
Maybe the question not specific to this proto-JEP as such , but in
My impression was that if it is something we are expecting to be
supported for all session/stanzas/nodes/etc - that is effecting
potentially anything/everything on the stream , it would ideally become
a stream feature.
Something that the server supports for the stream - not specific to a
user request.
If it becomes specific to a subset of usecases - like specific to users
, etc , it might make sense to use disco - since this would be different
for different users.

In this specific case which you proposed , it would be something that
the server advertises for the stream - I support 'smart presence list'
or whatever we call it ... and if negotiated , can be relied upon for
all users.
(Existence of a list is different from support for lists's).
This way , server's will not need to disco each time whether the other
side supports this 'smart presence list' or not ..

Ofcourse , I could be drastically wrong in my assumptions !

Thanks ,

Richard Dobson wrote:

> Mridul wrote:
>> Hi,
>>   Sorry to jump in so late.
>> I did not see much fuss being created about this - so thought I will
>> raise it.
>> The implicit creation of a list could go out of sync very fast , does
>> not take care of updates to privacy profiles and looks very 'hackish'
>> imo.
>> Why not make it explicit ?
>> The initiating server can request for a list creation with a set of bare
>> jid's and then use that as 'to' in subsequent presence stanza's -
>> similar in ways to muc I guess.
> This was my original suggestion, but they seem to be very against it
> for some reason, they have still yet to really explain why.
>> Either we can expose ways to add/delete jid's to this list , or just
>> recreate a new list depending on what gets decided here.
>> If the receiving server sends an error about list unavailability ,
>> initiating server can recreate the list again.
>> If some of these lists are constant/static , these lists could be reused
>> for different users as an optimization - need not be specific to a user.
>> (Like an admin group , etc) - just a thought , we need not get into
>> this :-)
> Yes exactly.
>> Just to add , if this gets supported , it will need to be a stream
>> feature I think ... not specific to a user/group/etc.
> It would be a disco feature, rather than a stream feature.
>> We could extend this to other 'needs' also.
>> Maybe I am missing the whole point or this has already been discussed ,
>> so feel free to flame me :-)
> don't worry, yes ive already suggested this, even though they seem to
> be ignoring it, more fuel on the fire, good to hear minds are thinking
> alike :)
> Richard

More information about the Standards mailing list