[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0199 (XMPP Ping)
mridul at sun.com
Wed May 9 17:39:44 UTC 2007
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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
Hmm, in which case aren't we not back to any entity using probe instead
of only servers ?
>> 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.)
Why use probe for this in the first place ?
The room is only interested in a particular full jid - not any/every
resource of the bare jid.
Using xmpp ping for this seems to be the right usage - along with
tightening 'probe' : or is there something I am missing ?
>> - 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
Yes, but why allow probe in the first place from anything other than
From what I recall, the primary motivation was for the purpose of
discovering if the remote endpoint is mia : and xmpp ping seems to be
better suited for this than probe.
We could entirely drop that section of the bis spec. Hence - no probes
will be issued at all for any case and that special case handling could
Endpoints wanting to ping would use xmpp ping - and server will use 
for the purpose of notifying directed presence updates when the entity
Is there any other reason why we need this special casing of probe in
face of directed presence ? I cant seem to recall any.
(Server's will not normally probe these entities).
(section 5.1.4, point 2).
>> 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.
Only implementations requiring xmpp ping would use it - why do we need
similar protocols for the same intent ?
Considering how simple xmpp ping is, I am sure it will catch on fast :
and the usefulness is really good (unless implementations go overboard
That way, we would keep rest of the xep's/rfc's (muc included) agnostic
to how to go about pinging - if impl's require is, they could use
xmpp-ping as an impl detail.
More information about the Standards