[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bind 2.0

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Mon Jan 23 15:04:16 UTC 2017


On 19 Jan 2017, at 14:14, Michal Piotrowski <michal.piotrowski at erlang-solutions.com> wrote:
> 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

That’s a jolly good question. I’ll have to think a bit about that when I do my next set of updates. If anyone has suggestions, please share.

/K

> 
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________



More information about the Standards mailing list