IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xmpp] 3921bis: probe + unavailable

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Fri, 29 January 2010 14:58 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 9E1C228C0D0 for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:58:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.543
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, 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 5x3ugZ+ixjfA for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:58:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 899C13A67F5 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:58:02 -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 3F25140126 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:58:24 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4B62F78E.1030400@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:58:22 -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: xmpp@ietf.org
References: <4B6202CF.6070702@stpeter.im> <14795.1264714828.295077@puncture> <42E4D3A6-6F8A-4005-8563-18F8CF934971@webkeks.org>
In-Reply-To: <42E4D3A6-6F8A-4005-8563-18F8CF934971@webkeks.org>
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="------------ms070004060209010605010601"
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: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:58:03 -0000

On 1/29/10 5:41 AM, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> Am 28.01.2010 um 22:40 schrieb Dave Cridland:
> 
>> So a note's needed at minimum to explain that this didn't used to be a
>> requirement, and clients (and servers) SHOULD cope with no response as
>> meaning unavailable.

The default is always unavailable. If you receive positive <presence/>
then you have some clue that the contact is online. If not, not. If you
receive a definitive answer that the contact is offline, that's even
better, but you can never assume that the contact is online.

> The problem with that is: How do you figure out if you don't get a
> response or if you are just still waiting for it? We should define a
> sane timeout here, I guess, to prevent incompatibilities. This also
> means we need to figure out a sane value that even works with bad
> connections.

I don't see a good reason to go down that path, which introduces more
complexity into clients.

Peter

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email