Am 29.01.2010 um 15:58 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
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 asmeaning 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 youreceive 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.
So you suggest to assume all presences you already received as invalid when you send a presence probe and only take those into account that you got after the probe? Sounds like a solution, but a dirty one, IMO.
I think that sending back an unavailable a MUST is a good idea, as then you have a definite answer whether the user is online or not, whereas without, it could just be a laggy connection etc.
-- Jonathan
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.