[Standards] XEP-296 problem?

Yann Leboulanger asterix at lagaule.org
Wed Aug 15 15:55:39 UTC 2012


On 08/15/2012 05:48 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Yann Leboulanger<asterix at lagaule.org>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was wonder what should I do in this situation:
>> user A and B are connected with resource r1. They that, so messages go from
>> A/r1 to B/r1.
>>
>> user B connects a second client with resource r2 with a higher priority.
>>
>> Where should go next message of user A?
>
> While I think 296 promotes unlocking more often than it should, in
> this case I agree with it - the next message should go to the bare
> JID. That a new resource has come online suggests a significant change
> in the user's state.

Even if resource has a lower prio?

I can thin of a case where it's not nice: if I start my mobile phone, I 
come online with a second resource with lower prio, and I don't want my 
encrypted sessions to be stopped because of that ...

But I cannot know if server mesage delivery is based on prio ...

-- 
Yann



More information about the Standards mailing list