[Standards] Delayed Delivery for CSI and possibly SM

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Tue May 30 14:28:37 UTC 2017


On 30 May 2017, at 15:18, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
> 
> 2017-05-30 16:02 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>:
>> Presence, mind, I'm not so sold on - I think it's significantly less
>> important, since presence is stateful rather than an event. But I'm
>> not averse to it - I'd just argue that if it causes problems, just
>> don't bother delay-stamping.
> 
> I have no hard feelings regarding presence however if we stamp with
> the account jid it wont cause problems.
> And people are really obsessed with 'Last Seen' Whatapp-like
> information. (That's how I stumbled over the problem in the first
> place.) So in their interest it would really help to have a more
> detailed time information on presence as well.  (Mind you CSI can
> easily delay those information by multiple hours)

I’m not sure, given the peculiarities of presence probes and S2S and etc., that using presence for this is particularly reliable. I could wrong (again).

/K


More information about the Standards mailing list