[Standards-JIG] Re: MUC presence issues
stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Oct 9 19:09:43 UTC 2006
Ian Paterson wrote:
> 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").
Well, Server1 could send the probe and if Server2 doesn't allow that, it
could return an error (not necessarily forbidden). That is, I don't know
if explicit negotiation is required, especially since rfc3921bis won't
include a negotiation protocol.
But I have no immediate objections to including this as optional
functionality in rfc3921bis. I'll look at it more tomorrow.
Jabber Software Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards