stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Aug 28 01:49:49 UTC 2007
Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2007, at 17:28, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> We had a long long discussion thread about this a few months ago, as a
>> result of which we modified rfc3920bis to recommend the use of random
>> resource identifiers that are generated by the server, not the client.
> FWIW, I don't agree with the notion that these random resources are a
> good thing
Yes, you have previously expressed that opinion. :)
> (I'd rather go back to the 'dark days' where we could infer
> meaning if we wanted to (albeit incorrectly, by rfc)).
Well it's another SHOULD-path vs. MAY-path discussion, isn't it? We
recommend that you ask your server to generate the resource identifier
but say that optionally you can generate one client-side if you want.
> I think the solution is simple though; if the server isn't routing your
> presence to someone, it should reply to iqs on your behalf saying you're
> not there. This is consistent with the route people have been suggesting
> recently (and I think I agree with) of 'if you want to start an X
> session with someone not on your roster, send directed presence first'.
I'm not yet sure that's the right approach. I mean, it seems quite
reasonable to me (which is why I keep mentioning it), but Ian Paterson
has objected that you might want to engage in a stanza session with
someone but not share presence (e.g., a Jingle call). Against that I
mention the traditionally quid-pro-quo nature of IM systems (give out
your presence, engage in real-time communication). As I say, presence
sharing (even temporarily for a transient chat) seems like a reasonable
expectation to me, but it might not seem that way to the participants in
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards