[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bind 2.0

Michal Piotrowski michal.piotrowski at erlang-solutions.com
Thu Jan 19 14:14:35 UTC 2017


I know I asked quite some questions already but I have more.
The protoXEP currently describes response to the client only in successful
case. How should the response look like if, from some reasons, the bind
operation doesn't succeed or is not allowed? For example from reasons
described in RFC 6120 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6120#section-7.6.2


Best regards
Michal Piotrowski
michal.piotrowski at erlang-solutions.com

On 19 January 2017 at 12:05, Michal Piotrowski <
michal.piotrowski at erlang-solutions.com> wrote:

>
> On 19 January 2017 at 11:58, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:
>
>> The other XEP is likely to say that a user can send an iq to the archive
>> saying something like <archive-read xmlns… contact=‘alice at wonderland.lit>> id=‘1’/> and the archive would then remember that state. When generating
>> the unread list on bind2, the archive would send it for any jid that has
>> sent a message to the user since the last read id for that jid. Does that
>> make sense? (How the server stores that internally is up to it, but I can
>> think of a number of sensible options, depending on the storage of the
>> archive).
>
>
> Yes it does make sense.
> I already can't wait to see the "other XEP".
>
>
> Best regards
> Michal Piotrowski
> michal.piotrowski at erlang-solutions.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20170119/40ea75d2/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list