[Standards] Delayed Delivery for CSI and possibly SM

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Tue May 30 14:37:39 UTC 2017


2017-05-30 16:28 GMT+02:00 Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com>:
> 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).

For this kind of audience and in lack of a 'proper' mechanism for this
faking it seems to be good enough.

Also stamping presences is done elsewhere as well. (Presences received
after signing in are usually stamped). A lot of clients show
'Available since…' or 'Away since…' information somewhere in the UI.

So reliable or not SM/CSI should not behave different here.

cheers
Daniel


More information about the Standards mailing list