Re: [Stox] Review on -presence

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 8/14/13 7:43 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 8/14/13 9:53 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> On 8/3/13 10:48 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
>>> (1) SIP user agent is online and generates a refresh by re-subscribing.
>>> In this case, the empty NOTIFY might make sense (although you could
>>> argue that it's not truly an "initial NOTIFY").
>>
>> An initial notify is the one directly in response to a SUBSCRIBE, even a
>> re-SUBSCRIBE. So I don't think there should be any controversy.
>
> Thanks for the verification.
>
> So under this model, the SIP user agent would send a re-SUBSCRIBE and it
> seems to me that the gateway then SHOULD (?) respond with a NOTIFY from
> the SIP representation of the XMPP user/resource. There are two cases
> for the NOTIFY:
>
> 1. If the XMPP user/resource is not in a "meaningful state" (cf. RFC
> 3856 and RFC 3265), the NOTIFY SHOULD (?) be empty.

I think this is probably ok.

> 2. If the XMPP user/resource is in a meaningful state, the NOTIFY SHOULD
> (?) contain data about the user/resource.
>
> Does that sound right?

Yeah.

	Thanks,
	Paul