On 2/1/10 6:03 PM, Justin Karneges 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 completely agree with that sentiment! > 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. Right now we have no protocol for management of account settings such as this (although we could use ad-hoc commands, XEP-0050). I don't think we want to introduce such a dependency now, at least not for core delivery semantics. > 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. 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 agree with Jonas that these are so closely connected as to be worth keeping together in the spec. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.