> I disagree - I think using <iq/> is probably the wrong thing to do a lot of > the time. But this is almost besides the point.
I would like to hear why, but not necessarily in this thread. Anyway, if we generalize the fact that, when a resource goes away and it suddenly is replaced by another, I still don't really see a problem. In this case, the receiving client may receive a few packets (which it will drop, and optionally show a warning, although I don't see any reason for bothering the user about it), but after that the sender will immediately stop sending and report a problem to the sending user (and optionally, send an error through Jingle to the receiving entity). But as you said, this is an IBB problem, not a E2E problem. cheers, Remko
