Peter's new proposal sounds good to me. A few more comments inline below: On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Justin Karneges <justin at affinix.com> wrote: > On Monday 01 February 2010 12:46:52 Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> I understand that the MUST here is an imposition on servers. IMHO the >> deterministic nature of the unavailable has many benefits, but I can see >> why large service providers would prefer to return a stanza to the >> probing user only if the contact is online. So I think it's good that we >> discuss the tradeoffs here. > > A large benefit is to prevent a jabber:iq:last storm. We don't want there to > be any reason for a client to poll its entire roster. > > I can see why a mobile client might not be interested in having that > information pushed at it on login, to reduce resource usage. Jonas' > suggestion of making this a client-controlled option is probably best, but I > don't know what the default behavior should be. I wouldn't want to change the default behavior in a way that breaks the user experience on clients that work well today. > Also, there has been discussion in the past about sending presence only of > certain contacts, groups, etc, when mobile, so the solution for filtering out > unavailable presence might fit right in with that maybe. > > Another thing: this issue is actually two-part: 1) should remote servers reply > to probes if the contact is unavailable? and 2) should the local server send > unavailable presence to contacts that just logged in? Both of these have > resource usage implications, but only the second one impacts the client. I'd prefer continuing to treat these as one in the spec to keep it simple. I also would not want it to be a MUST for (1). > -Justin > _______________________________________________ > xmpp mailing list > xmpp at ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp >
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.