[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0199 (XMPP Ping)
stpeter at jabber.org
Tue May 8 22:27:19 UTC 2007
Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
> Ah, I see that the type=probe is not present in the presence packet : my
> mistake, thanks for clarifiyng !
In fact that's a typo, there should be a type='probe' in one of the
> But that addition 4.6 is what I am caught up about
Oh, sorry, I didn't know what you were referring to, which is:
That shows an example of a server returning presence information in
response to a probe from an entity with which a user has shared directed
presence. I think the SHOULDs there are not necessary (the chat service
SHOULD send a probe blah blah blah, whether that is recommended is a
matter for XEP-0045.)
> - doesn't the example
> in that section have the same intent as ping - check for connectivity of
> the user ? [*] So wont xmpp ping not be a superset of that directed
> presence usecase ?
The only point of those examples is to show that a server should answer
a probe in that case (because the user sent directed presence). Whether
ping is a better way to check connectivity or availability is another
> If yes, why not remove that section and recommend use of xmpp ping for
> that usecase ? (assuming ping xep becomes draft before 3921 bis).
We would NOT recommend XEP-0199 there because that's not the focus of
that section. But we MIGHT recommend XEP-0199 from XEP-0045. However,
the nice thing about presence probes in this case is that they would
work today, they don't depend on implementation and deployment of
XEP-0199, and in any case room joining and leaving is done with presence
right now in MUC so using presence this way seems appropriate. However,
that is NOT a matter for rfc3921bis to recommend or not.
XMPP Standards Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards