[Standards] RFC 3921bis Managing Presence Subscriptions based on full JIDs serious issue
tomek at xiaoka.com
Sat Feb 9 15:44:23 UTC 2008
Dnia 2008-02-08, Pt o godzinie 20:54 +0000, Richard Dobson pisze:
> 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
What I _really_ don't like with it, is mapping one namespace to many
namespaces in XMPP domain.
+48123456789 at vodafone.sms.chrome.pl is the same thing that @orange. and
This is similiar case with transports, that map one legacy names to many
XMPP JIDs, depending where the gateway is, causing very abstract
"I just switched my transport from gw.xxxx.com to gw.yyyyy.net. How do I
migrate my contacts of 12345 at gw.xxxx.com. Oh, btw, I do want to keep the
chat history so this strange thingy JRU is no good..."
And with different gateways we loose the fallback to try Gateway2 when
selected Gateway1 resource is not available (default highest priority
resource message routing fallback).
/\_./o__ Tomasz Sterna
._.(_.)_ im:smoku at xiaoka.com
More information about the Standards