[Standards] XEP-296 problem?

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Wed Aug 15 15:59:36 UTC 2012


On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Yann Leboulanger <yann at leboulanger.org> wrote:
> 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?

Yes, I think so.

> 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 ...

I agree that this isn't a nice scenario, but it's not clear to me what
would be better - leaving chats locked after other resources have come
online is a demonstrably bad thing in many circumstances, and relying
on priority for anything doesn't seem like a good solution.

/K



More information about the Standards mailing list