Hello Florian, On 4 Aug 2015, at 22:45, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 04.08.2015 19:35, Mickaël Rémond wrote: >> I hope it makes sense to you :) > > Yep. At first I was thinking that triggering the unavailable presence to > the xep33 service could become an issue. But after looking again at > xep33 examples and thinking a bit more about it, I'm more and more > convinced that it will/could work. Mostly because from the user's server > perspective the xep33 presence sent to the xep33 service is just an > ordinary directed presence. And thus the unavailable presence will be > send by the users server if the client goes offline (not matter if it's > a clean termination of the c2s connection or an abrupt one). > > It really seems like a xep33 service needs to keep track of presence > sessions established via xep33 broadcasted presences, similar to what > servers are required to do as per rfc6121 § 4.6. If we find this to be > true, then it should be stated in xep33. Thanks for your feedback. I will prepare a PR for XEP-0033. -- Mickaël Rémond
