[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0319 (Last User Interaction in Presence)

Tobias Markmann tmarkmann at googlemail.com
Wed Dec 3 19:51:29 UTC 2014


Some comments from the author’s perspective inline.

On 03.12.2014, at 19:16, XMPP Extensions Editor <editor at xmpp.org> wrote:

> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or to clarify an existing protocol?

It fills a gap for a clean and reliable reporting of idle (user inactivity) time. While there is XEP-0012 and its presence based distribution enhancement it still has some drawbacks:
- Uses relative time. Receiving clients need to calculate absolute time on receive. Due to transmission delays on different C2S/S2S streams other clients are likely to receive the idle information at different times, leading to different absolute times. Using absolute times circumvents this issue.
- XEP-0012 is used for two things. The same syntax has overloaded semantic. Sending a last activity request to JID the sender doesn’t know if the time it’s receiving is the idle time or the uptime. Even if you’d detect the semantic difference from the kind of JID, it’d disallow query of uptime for users. 

> 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction and requirements?


> 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, why not?

It’s implemented in Swift [1]. I wrote this XEP since I was unhappy with XEP-0012 due to reasons stated under 1.

> 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?

None other than those mention in the XEP.

> 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?

I hope so. I’m happy for feedback regarding that though.


[1] http://swift.im/git/swift/commit/?id=836925a5cdc7017da7fb84416c803e652b48e399
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20141203/64ae660c/attachment.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list