[Standards] XEP-296 problem?

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Wed Aug 15 16:18:24 UTC 2012


On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Yann Leboulanger <asterix at lagaule.org> wrote:
> 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.

Ah. This is where my disagreement with 296 starts coming out :)

I think that if there are two resources, and the unbound resource
becomes 'less available' (this isn't always easy to define, but there
are some cases that are trivial, like available->(away|na|dnd)) the
chat shouldn't be unbound.

That is, where A has resource a and B has resources 1 and 2 where all
resources start available.

Message A/a->B  : B (both) binds chat to A/a
Message B/1 -> A/a : A binds chat to B/1

Presence B/2 goes away : A shouldn't unbind.

Presence B/2 becomes available again : A should unbind.

/K



More information about the Standards mailing list