[Standards] XEP-296 problem?

Yann Leboulanger asterix at lagaule.org
Sat Aug 18 08:53:48 UTC 2012


On 08/15/2012 06:18 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> 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
>

Another case when behaviour might be strange:
3 resources R1 prio 1, R2 prio 2, R3 prio 3

R1 and R3 online.

R1 send un a message, so we reply there.
R2 comes online
next message will go to R3.

But once again I dont know if there is a best solution about what to do 
in this case.

-- 
Yann



More information about the Standards mailing list