[Standards] SIFT

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue May 19 22:17:13 UTC 2009

Hash: SHA1

On 5/18/09 12:20 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> 2009/5/18 Jiří Zárevúcky <zarevucky.jiri at gmail.com>:
>> Well, until now I believed that "unavailable" presence doesn't mean
>> "show me offline", but "make me unavailable for presence exchange and
>> messaging". But you're right, it doesn't really matter.
>> Anyway, if SIFT capable client went invisible mid-session, it could do
>> so by sending unavailable presence. But possibly without any prior
>> SIFT command. So I think it should be noted that either supporting
>> client must use sift to initiate it's "SIFT based session" prior to
>> using such invisibility, or the server must not terminate the
>> communication availability even when there was no explicit SIFT.  If
>> it is not specified, the first possibility should be implicit for the
>> client developer to avoid problems, but I'm afraid not everyone would
>> realize that.
> Agree.  The default is not to sift, and we may not have captured that
> adequately in the draft yet.  We also need to make it explicit that
> you can change your sift rules at any time.
> There is still a use case for priority -1 presence; I'm a presence
> publisher that doesn't want to receive messages.  The -1 here is a
> hint to the sender that they shouldn't expect me to get this message
> if they send it right now.  We probably need to add text like this:
> If a client requests message sifting, but sends presence, it SHOULD
> send priority -1 as a hint to subscribers.

Done. I'm also adding a bit more on the requirements per this:



- --
Peter Saint-Andre

Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the Standards mailing list