[Standards] XEP-296 problem?

Yann Leboulanger asterix at lagaule.org
Wed Aug 15 16:11:04 UTC 2012


On 08/15/2012 05:59 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> 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.

Ok, then I'll have to restart the stanza negociation then (for E2E and 
message archiving)

But I still think that's strange to unblock and restart the session if 
the lower prio goes auto away for example.

-- 
Yann



More information about the Standards mailing list