Re: [xmpp] 3921bis: probe + unavailable

Jonas Lindberg <jonasl@google.com> Sat, 30 January 2010 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <jonasl@google.com>
X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD503A6782 for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:29:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2qVy05q+3ipu for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:29:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.33.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C014E3A67CF for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:29:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kpbe14.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe14.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.78]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o0UMTSPd018973 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:29:28 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1264890569; bh=ir37lwra8G6ynMhJ6rBCtjHBFaY=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=QbPTuWRmDTm9CNLrEx7rg1VyTHFc2Tob/VYG5xFWa2JD7Wxfa5X4E3Ne9hhCppQaV 6J/SyFmJQ6uxsONCVw5Mg==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id: subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=H+eVwHVSFQ1pg8b4O5GPbD0FVZl7p50YdiGm82n/9I9BIw/8sO8G9sY29bn6FK8+O bc/l/WEzwu8k0ae8axVeA==
Received: from yxe6 (yxe6.prod.google.com [10.190.2.6]) by kpbe14.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o0UMTQ2g001888 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:29:27 -0800
Received: by yxe6 with SMTP id 6so6911304yxe.13 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:29:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.93.5 with SMTP id v5mr3964834ybl.6.1264890566767; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:29:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1764944E-D3E1-4BD5-BAF2-D84380983438@webkeks.org>
References: <4B6202CF.6070702@stpeter.im> <14795.1264714828.295077@puncture> <42E4D3A6-6F8A-4005-8563-18F8CF934971@webkeks.org> <4B62F78E.1030400@stpeter.im> <12A2144C-5AEB-44B4-BFC6-C8D8DC66CC3E@webkeks.org> <4B63609C.2000702@stpeter.im> <1764944E-D3E1-4BD5-BAF2-D84380983438@webkeks.org>
From: Jonas Lindberg <jonasl@google.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:29:06 +0100
Message-ID: <a74e91db1001301429g6c69bc10xddfc3a59baf2ac5b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Schleifer <js-xmppwg@webkeks.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd35010e9743b047e694896
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: XMPP <xmpp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xmpp] 3921bis: probe + unavailable
X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: XMPP Working Group <xmpp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xmpp>
List-Post: <mailto:xmpp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:29:07 -0000

While I agree this would simplify the protocol a little, I am not convinced
it is a change worth making.

First of all, not responding to probe when unavailable is a pretty good
optimization. A large part of Xmpp traffic is presence. This change would
further significantly increase the presence traffic, making scaling more
challenging and adding load to c2s and s2s connections. For example, a cell
phone xmpp client may be better off not getting potentially thousands of
presence unavailable stanzas for offline friends when connecting over gprs.

I'm also not convinced this change make it significantly easier to implement
xmpp clients/servers. Especially if we are going to recommend that clients
and servers SHOULD cope with no response for legacy reasons.

Jonas

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:42 AM, Jonathan Schleifer
<js-xmppwg@webkeks.org>wrote;wrote:

> Am 29.01.2010 um 23:26 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
>
>
>  I suggested making it a MUST to return unavailable.
>>
>
> Yeah, that was what I was suggesting, too, however, it seems I was too
> tired to formulate it in an understandable way / write a sentence which
> makes sense.
>
> Therefore: +1
>
>
> --
> Jonathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmpp mailing list
> xmpp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp
>