[Standards-JIG] RFC 3921 Better User Presence Experience (Implementation Detail)

Michal 'vorner' Vaner michal.vaner at kdemail.net
Thu Oct 26 20:46:27 UTC 2006


On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:25:25PM +0200, Matthias Wimmer wrote:
> JD Conley schrieb:
> > I would propose that if a server is ever unable to deliver a stanza to a
> > remote domain over an S2S link it SHOULD notify all locally connected
> > entities that have received presence from that domain with an empty
> > presence unavailable stanza. And this should be in the implementation
> > notes or maybe in 3921.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> I thought about it today. I think that this would be wrong. Sending
> unavailable presence has the semantic meaning of "entity is offline". -
> But a server not being able to deliver a stanza, does not know if the
> other end is offline - it only knows, that it knows nothing.

Well, to me unavailable means to me I can not talk with the person at
the moment. For any reason. Unreachable server means he is unavailable
as well.

It could have status text something like 'Lost connection'.

> I think we should think about something like sending a <presence
> type="error"/> in that case.

presence type error means to me something like "There was an error while
sending a presence/something".

> This would allow the entity that subscribed
> to the presence, to decide on how to react on this situation. E.g. a muc
> comonent could throw the user out of a room, while a client could mark
> the contact to have unknown state.

grep me no patterns and I'll tell you no lines.

Michal 'vorner' Vaner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20061026/1e85a433/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list