[Standards] Namespace Priority

Ian Paterson ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Sat Mar 31 01:37:54 UTC 2007

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> It doesn't apply to IQs. 
> But couldn't it? (At least if the IQ is directed to my bare JID.)

Well, it could, but I'm not sure it's necessary (thanks to XEP-0155). 
And isn't the server supposed to handle IQs directed to the bare JID 
itself, rather than forward them?

>> Furthermore, it doesn't help anyway, since servers would still have 
>> no way of understanding to which resource a Session Negotiation 
>> request should be delivered (since the sender currently has no 
>> protocol to tell the server that the request should be sent to a 
>> client that supports, for example, Jingle).
> But we can create a RAP application (rapplication?) type for that.

We can, then you'll be duplicating the functionality in my namespace 
priority proposal.

>> So IMHO the solution should not involve presence stanzas at
>> all. The alternative proposal outlined in the URL above does give 
>> servers a bit more work when delivering <message/> stanzas to bare 
>> JIDs, but it has several advantages:
>> 1. it works for non-subscribers
>> 2. it keeps presence stanzas small
> I.e., because you "register" on login and don't ever send your 
> priorities via presence.

Yes, that's why I made a new proposal instead of just proposing new 
functionality for RAP. RAP is redundant if you have namespace priority.

>> 3. it is even more simple for clients
> How so?
> And how does your approach interact with RAP? Does it replace RAP?

It completely replaces RAP with something that works for non-subscribers 

IMHO RAP has to be changed or (better) replaced or completely rewritten, 
otherwise in many typical cases it will be impossible for Aunt Tillie to 
talk unless she is a subscriber.

- Ian

More information about the Standards mailing list