Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:Not an objection. But I am a bit worried by this change when I look at my roster. However, at the same time I know that my roster is most probably not a very typical one. Do we have any stats? What's the percent of offline contacts? And what's typical roster size? Maybe it doesn't matter that presence list increases 3 times if this means increasing from 3 to 9 presence stanzas?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: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.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.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.So do I take that as an objection to the modified text in rfc3921bis?
I have 1770 people in my roster, so yes I'm concerned. :)I'll look up some stats on the jabber.org service to see what the average roster size is.
Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
