[Standards-JIG] MUC Invitations, Jingle Relays, and Big Problems

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Wed Nov 8 01:53:31 UTC 2006

> >> IMHO it would be a good practice for users who are in a 
> 1-to-1 chat 
> >> (but not in each other's rosters) to send directed presence. Been 
> >> meaning to write that up somewhere....
> > And what is the reasoning for that?
> Because presence is good. E.g., if your temporary 
> conversation partner goes away or offline, you'll know.

Actually, directed presence doesn't cover the "away" case automatically.
Snip from

"If the user sends directed presence to an entity that is not in the
user's roster with a subscription type of "from" or "both" after having
sent initial presence and before sending unavailable presence broadcast,
the user's server MUST route or deliver the full XML of that presence
stanza to the entity but MUST NOT modify the contact's status regarding
available presence broadcast (i.e., it MUST NOT include the entity's JID
in any subsequent broadcasts of available presence initiated by the
user); however, if the available resource from which the user sent the
directed presence become unavailable, the user's server MUST broadcast
that unavailable presence to the entity (if the user has not yet sent
directed unavailable presence to that entity)."

It could be helpful to have a directed presence mode where it would keep
sending my presence updates (like "away") until I go offline or I send
an offline directed presence. Alternatively, the recommended client
implementation text could state that when chatting with someone not on
your roster, all presence updates are sent as directed presence (so if
you go away, send an away directed presence). More work for the client,
but we don't have to change the RFC language. :)


More information about the Standards mailing list