[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 
too.

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