-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/2/09 2:00 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> [snip]
>> Yes, I did:
>>
>> "If the contact does not approve or deny the subscription request within
>> some configurable amount of time, the user's server SHOULD resend the
>> subsc
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I did:
"If the contact does not approve or deny the subscription request within
some configurable amount of time, the user's server SHOULD resend the
subscription request to the contact based on an implementation-specific
algorithm (e.g., whenever a new resou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/12/09 1:25 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 4/12/09 1:20 PM, Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>>
>> --- On Mon, 13/4/09, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
>>> From: Peter Saint-Andre Subject: Re:
>>> [Standards
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/10/09 4:40 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 4/7/09 12:45 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
>> hijacking the thread... two concrete examples where error handling
>> is needed:
>>
>> subscription state is "none" initially:
>> SENT:
>> RECV: > type='set'>>
On 4/12/09 1:20 PM, Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>
>
> --- On Mon, 13/4/09, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
>> From: Peter Saint-Andre Subject: Re:
>> [Standards] Inconsistent Subscriptions in XMPP To: "XMPP Standards"
>> Date: Monday, 13 April, 2009
--- On Mon, 13/4/09, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> From: Peter Saint-Andre
> Subject: Re: [Standards] Inconsistent Subscriptions in XMPP
> To: "XMPP Standards"
> Date: Monday, 13 April, 2009, 12:45 AM
> On 4/10/09 8:36 PM, Mridul
> Muralidharan wrote:
> >
&
On 4/10/09 8:36 PM, Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>
>
> --- On Sat, 11/4/09, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
>> From: Peter Saint-Andre Subject: Re:
>> [Standards] Inconsistent Subscriptions in XMPP To: "XMPP Standards"
>> Date: Saturday, 11 April, 200
--- On Sat, 11/4/09, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> From: Peter Saint-Andre
> Subject: Re: [Standards] Inconsistent Subscriptions in XMPP
> To: "XMPP Standards"
> Date: Saturday, 11 April, 2009, 4:04 AM
> On 4/1/09 12:07 PM, Mridul
> Muralidharan wrote:
> >
&
On 4/7/09 12:45 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
> hijacking the thread... two concrete examples where error handling
> is needed:
>
> subscription state is "none" initially:
> SENT:
> RECV: type='set'> subscription='none' jid='f...@bar'/>
> RECV: id='jcl_37'> xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanza
On 4/1/09 12:07 PM, Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>
> If I recall right, probe can be sent to a full jid in case a directed
> presence was received from it in the past - and the behavior would be
> different (return last presence stanza sent iirc). Has that behavior
> changed or is the description be
hijacking the thread... two concrete examples where error handling
is needed:
subscription state is "none" initially:
SENT:
RECV: type='set'>subscription='none' jid='f...@bar'/>
RECV: id='jcl_37'>xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'/>
after relogin and roster fetch:
RECV: type='result'>
-- On Wed, 1/4/09, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> From: Peter Saint-Andre
> Subject: Re: [Standards] Inconsistent Subscriptions in XMPP
> To: "XMPP Standards"
> Date: Wednesday, 1 April, 2009, 11:19 PM
> On 3/5/09 5:37 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > O
On 3/5/09 5:37 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Feb 28, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
>
>> What action is appropriate is open for debate. What should the
>> resulting state be? The lowest common permissions (possibly sending
>> unsubscribe[d] to the contact or changing the user's subsc
Hi,
On Mar 5, 2009, at 5:51 PM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
The table is what I had in mind.
"highest common permissions" wasn't the best of phrases to use. What I
was thinking of was sending presence subscribe. This wouldn't be
appropriate with the current presence information available to servers
(i
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Pedro Melo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Feb 28, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 25, 2009, at 7:36 PM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:54:38 +
Pedro Melo wrote:
>>
Hi,
On Feb 28, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Pedro Melo
wrote:
On Feb 25, 2009, at 7:36 PM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:54:38 +
Pedro Melo wrote:
Hi,
On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:49 AM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
There are several case
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
>> From an IM user's point of view, trying to settle on the highest
>> common permissions seems more appropriate (and less confusing).
> Very bad idea. You have either to go for lowest... or negotiate with
> the user. (Privacy issues)
The highe
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:18:38 +0500
Waqas Hussain wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Pedro Melo
> wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 25, 2009, at 7:36 PM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:54:38 +
> >> Pedro Melo wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:49 AM, Pa
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
>
> On Feb 25, 2009, at 7:36 PM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:54:38 +
>> Pedro Melo wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:49 AM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
>>>
There are several cases when subscription databases
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:57:12 -0500
Thomas Charron wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Pavel Simerda
> wrote:
> > Btw presence probe seems too weak... as it doesn't reveal full
> > subscription state.
>
> By design.
>
Of course, but that doesn't help.
--
Freelance consultant and tra
On Feb 25, 2009, at 7:36 PM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:54:38 +
Pedro Melo wrote:
Hi,
On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:49 AM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
There are several cases when subscription databases in XMPP are
inconsistent.
You may view subscription information as a global di
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> Btw presence probe seems too weak... as it doesn't reveal full
> subscription state.
By design.
--
-- Thomas
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:15:18 +0100
Robin Redeker wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 01:49:50AM +0100, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > There are several cases when subscription databases in XMPP are
> > inconsistent.
> >
> > You may view subscription information as a global distributed
> > database. Subsc
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 01:49:50AM +0100, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> There are several cases when subscription databases in XMPP are
> inconsistent.
>
> You may view subscription information as a global distributed database.
> Subscription state between two JIDs, for example a...@a and b...@b are stor
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:54:38 +
Pedro Melo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:49 AM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
>
> > There are several cases when subscription databases in XMPP are
> > inconsistent.
> >
> > You may view subscription information as a global distributed
> > database.
> > Sub
You just have to tell the deveopers to do it, then :).
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:54:38 +
Pedro Melo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:49 AM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
>
> > There are several cases when subscription databases in XMPP are
> > inconsistent.
> >
> > You may view subscription inf
Hi,
On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:49 AM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
There are several cases when subscription databases in XMPP are
inconsistent.
You may view subscription information as a global distributed
database.
Subscription state between two JIDs, for example a...@a and b...@b are
stored
in two
27 matches
Mail list logo
