[Standards] Move CSI to Last Call ("Proposed")

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 29 22:33:46 UTC 2015


On 29 July 2015 at 15:01, Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:
>> The client knows for example that the roster presence information is
>> up-to date. Basically I've an use case of a client using CSI which needs
>> to take a decision based on the current presence state of the roster
>> items. Imagine the following scenario: Client is in CSI inactive state,
>> an external event triggers the client so that he needs to make an
>> decision based on the presence state of the roster items. In order to
>> get the latest presence information, the client switches to CSI active
>> and waits for the queued presence stanzas to arrive. Without the CSI
>> state change message notification, the client can't decide when the last
>> queued presence stanza has arrived.
>
> Using CSI like this is an abuse of the spec, in my opinion. It was not
> designed as a locking / synchronization mechanism, and a new XEP
> should be written for this if it's something you need (actually, I
> have an XEP that does effectively just this that I've got a green
> light on and am ready to submit as soon as I hear back from the
> lawyers at work; will advise).

I'm quietly following this thread, as I've gone back and forth a
number of times now on this issue.

My personal preference (which was originally quite strong) lies with
what appears to be consensus... keeping it simple. Especially since
(as we all agreed at one point) it doesn't 100% solve the presence
sync issue for clients even if it had an acknowledgement. In fact the
presence sync issue is impossible to solve, as network latency is and
never will be zero.

Regards,
Matthew



More information about the Standards mailing list