[Standards] RFC 3921bis Managing Presence Subscriptions based on full JIDs serious issue
melo at simplicidade.org
Fri Feb 8 21:43:08 UTC 2008
On Feb 8, 2008, at 8:54 PM, Richard Dobson wrote:
>> It depends on which SMS gateway is provided by your mobile
>> operator and and who operates the number you're trying to reach.
>> And yes, it's mostly about money and other limits that mobile
>> operators have in their gateways.
>> (So for example, if my phone is operated by operator A, and I'm
>> trying to send to a number operated by the same operator, I
>> probably want to use operator A's gateway. But if the number I am
>> trying to reach is from operator B, operator A's gateway may not
>> allow me to send this message for free. Also using operator B's
>> gateway may be not-free for me (as my number is operated by A).
>> But maybe it will be cheaper with my current cost plan. Etc, etc.)
> But surely in those cases the JIDs would be something like:
> +48123456789 at vodafone.sms.chrome.pl
> +48123456789 at orange.sms.chrome.pl
> +48123456789 at tmobile.sms.chrome.pl
> rather than using resources to denote them.
Or just use sms.chrome.pl and let that logic of least cost routing be
the problem of the transport.
you want to tune routing, you could use ad-hoc commands to change the
routing policy for your account or for a specific number.
What I didn't like in the initial solution, is that the routing
decision is done in the client based on resource names.
We have a bi-directional SMS gateway at SAPO, and we take care of
that at the server side of things.
XMPP ID: melo at simplicidade.org
More information about the Standards