IETF Logo Mail Archive

[xmpp] probe from/to (was: Re: 3921bis: probe + unavailable)

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Fri, 29 January 2010 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 155223A67F5 for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:03:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 C9BYIUH2Ker1 for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:03:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33223A67DA for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:03:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squire.local (dsl-251-115.dynamic-dsl.frii.net [216.17.251.115]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B806440126; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:03:26 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4B62F8BD.5010409@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:03:25 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Waqas Hussain <waqas20@gmail.com>
References: <4B6202CF.6070702@stpeter.im> <7fc4fa881001290237l7bf59104oe32d88da6b0d1af2@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7fc4fa881001290237l7bf59104oe32d88da6b0d1af2@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms010104070401050500030402"
Cc: XMPP <xmpp@ietf.org>
Subject: [xmpp] probe from/to (was: Re: 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: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:03:06 -0000

On 1/29/10 3:37 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:

> There's another thing I was wondering about:
> 
> For presence probes, "The value of the 'from' address MUST be the full
> JID <user@domain/resource> of the user and the value of the 'to' address
> MUST be the bare JID <contact@domain> of the contact to which the user
> is subscribed."
> 
> Why MUST those JIDs be that way? I can think of valid cases where a bare
> JID may wish to probe the presence of a full JID.

The original reasoning was that a user comes online with a particular
resource and my server sends a probe to the user's contacts (bare JID)
on behalf of that resource (full JID). I don't know what your use cases
are, so I'm not sure why we would change the logic we've had since 1999.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email