[Standards] Comment to rfc3921 pt 11.1 : handling of messages to ressources with identical priorities

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Aug 21 15:34:49 UTC 2007


Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> 
> On Aug 17, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
>> Some XMPP servers like to be "smart". I'd be open to saying that the
>> server SHOULD deliver to all resources, but leave the door open for
>> other behavior by saying that the server MAY use some algorithm to
>> determine which single resource to deliver to.
> 
> I still believe that coming home to find a message ("hey!") which I have
> already replied to while I was at work would be confusing at best, and
> harmful at worst.  Imagine: "sell 50 shares!".
> 
> If there was a protocol for notifying your other resources that a
> particular message had been handled somewhere else (or some other
> solution), then I could get behind this more.
> 
> I often find that the people that want what the SIP folks call "forking"
> are either using a client that doesn't set priority to 0 on auto-away,

That sounds like a best practice to document somewhere. :)

> are running multiple resources and haven't configured their priorities
> in any interesting way, or have a server that doesn't make a good guess
> on priority ties.

I'm curious: how frequent are priority ties anyway?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/




More information about the Standards mailing list