On Friday 25 January 2008 7:06 am, Maciek Niedzielski wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 12:23:38PM -0800, Justin Karneges wrote: > > On Thursday 20 December 2007 2:52 pm, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > > 2. Else, if the contact has no available resources, the server MUST > > > either (1) reply to the presence probe by sending to the user > > > the full XML of the last presence stanza of type "unavailable" received > > > by the server from the contact, or (2) not reply at all. So a nice > > > server will return the last unavailable presence information (with a > > > Delayed Delivery flag), thus obviating the need for a flood of > > > jabber:iq:last requests. > > > > How about emphasizing the first option as a SHOULD? This would hopefully > > encourage new servers to always reply, while not causing existing servers > > to become non-compliant. > > On the other hand, usually just 1/3 of my roster is online. So if server > starts sending presence for all contacts, initial "presence flood" from > the server increases 3 times.
The price of avoiding a jabber:iq:last flood. Sounds like the caps discussion. :) -Justin
