Re: [xmpp] 3921bis: probe + unavailable

Jonas Lindberg <jonasl@google.com> Mon, 01 February 2010 19:17 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 0EE6B3A6A3A for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:17:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.999, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 Ht668PKBeFzw for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:17:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2440A3A6A36 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:17:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.65]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o11JIE1t011144 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:18:14 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1265051894; bh=WHd2z119n9dZeEV0Oi6dn1zt4iY=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=SqcSGWai7iITgLzcR4SaeZgWnKyItEDK0WiEj8Q2dqX6v6hLc1BYAOgI8ylFC/URd NkTAb/ghZwo7tJ0f1dT0g==
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=mD7inI2ALzHWGjrXGeFmRHeynGaZxmc85wtpRTe1JXnej6snsppw5k1pfyd6ejIra 5IafidEA/qQSw/L0EbEgA==
Received: from yxe10 (yxe10.prod.google.com [10.190.2.10]) by wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o11JIDqR003669 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:18:13 -0800
Received: by yxe10 with SMTP id 10so5041193yxe.12 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:18:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.86.21 with SMTP id o21mr7004918ybl.142.1265051893403; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:18:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <310544DA-9BBF-4824-B170-4A188B8EEFF1@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> <a74e91db1001301429g6c69bc10xddfc3a59baf2ac5b@mail.gmail.com> <310544DA-9BBF-4824-B170-4A188B8EEFF1@webkeks.org>
From: Jonas Lindberg <jonasl@google.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:17:51 +0100
Message-ID: <a74e91db1002011117r5ae82d43n67eacb590c646236@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Schleifer <js-xmppwg@webkeks.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:17:41 -0000

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Jonathan Schleifer
<js-xmppwg@webkeks.org> wrote:
> Am 30.01.2010 um 23:29 schrieb Jonas Lindberg:
>
>> 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.
>
> I think you got something wrong here: We are not talking about what happens
> when you connect. We are talking about presence probes sent from one client
> to a server. A mobile client would not get any unavailable presence more
> than it would get now, expect it requests it by doing a probe.

"4.3.2. Server Processing of Inbound Presence Probe", seems to apply
to probes sent from clients as well as server generated probes,
including those generated on initial presence. Not sure what I'm
missing?

How do I tell if "<presence from='juliet@example.com/balcony'
to='benvolio@example.net' type='probe'/>" is sent by client or server
generated?

>
> --
> Jonathan
>
>