[Standards-JIG] Re: MUC presence issues

Ian Paterson ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Mon Oct 9 15:29:51 UTC 2006

Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>> The server wouldn't need to remember directed presence stanzas I send 
>> to subscribers. So, this extra state shouldn't be a problem under 
>> normal usage. I guess the average number of rooms each user occupies 
>> at any one time will be less than one.
> Not at many of our customers.  We've been told people are often in a 
> hundred rooms. (!)

Wow! I guess a fix for this issue will make them happy then. ;-)

If quantity of state is the real concern here, then instead of my server 
sending an exact copy of the last directed presence stanza, the RFC 
could allow it to send an empty presence stanza that should be 
interpreted as: "Ian is still online: see the previous directed presence 
stanza you received for presence details" (which the other server 
presumably has since it is probing merely to confirm that I am still 

This version of the probe solution would probably require even less 
state than the groupchat bounce solution, since as soon as I go 
unavailable all state can be forgotten.

The feature that allowed probes on behalf of recipients of directed 
available presence would need to be negotiated between the servers 
(otherwise a "forbidden" error response could be misinterpreted as 
"offline" when the situation was "online but forbidden").

- Ian

More information about the Standards mailing list