[Standards] s2s and gracelessly broken streams

Justin Karneges justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com
Fri Mar 30 17:22:34 UTC 2007


On Friday 30 March 2007 10:04 am, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Bruce Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Justin Karneges wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 27 March 2007 10:09 pm, Philipp Hancke wrote:
> >>> Justin Karneges wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>> The best solution, as far as I can tell, would be for the server to
> >>>> perform presence probes on a periodic basis, rather than only on
> >>>> client
> >>>
> >>> The problem with that is that replies to the probe are optional. So If
> >>> the remote contact is assumed to be online and the remote server
> >>> chooses not to reply to probes if the contact is offline you have a
> >>> problem.
> >>
> >> Right.  However, I think for this procedure we'd only want to probe
> >> against
> >> servers that we are no longer connected to, and only after some
> >> timeout.  If
> >
> > Seems to me that it would make more sense to periodically probe against
> > the remote server itself, rather than each contact at the remote server.
> > Is this possible?
>
> Sure, servers could share presence information, though that's not done
> today.

It may also be enough for the "probe" in this sense to simply be s2s 
connectivity establishment, and not an actual presence probe.

The full probe would be more reliable though.  I imagine that if the remote 
contact changes presence (particularly to unavailable), and there is a lapse 
in connectivity between your server and the remote server, then you might not 
ever receive this presence notification.

-Justin



More information about the Standards mailing list