On 4/10/09 8:36 PM, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: > > > --- On Sat, 11/4/09, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote: > >> From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> Subject: Re: >> [Standards] Inconsistent Subscriptions in XMPP To: "XMPP Standards" >> <standards@xmpp.org> Date: Saturday, 11 April, 2009, 4:04 AM 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 below only for bare >> jid's ? >> >> You can probe anything you want. :) > > > I should have clarified better. > > Assume that there is mutual subscription between userA and userB. > Support we have : > > userA has session us...@domain/resA > userB has session us...@domain/resB1 > userB has session us...@domain/resB2 > > > After presence has been exchanged, suppose userA blocks userB (or all > users) - so an unavailable presence is sent to userB's resources. > Subsequent to that, suppose userA sends available to one of the > resources, say - us...@domain/resB1 > > Now, iirc, if resB2 probes, userA's server must return unavailable.
That seems reasonable. > But if resB1 probes, userA's server must return the last directed > presence sent (subsequent to unavailable). That also seems reasonable. > We could replace userB with muc or any other component in the above. Right. The MUC example is more apropos. > IIRC this was a usecase discussed quite a while back - was it removed > ? If not, my query was, how does it interact with this list below We had some text about this in rfc3921bis but IIRC we removed it because people thought it belonged in XEP-0045 (e.g., an implementation note on "how to remove ghost users"), not the RFC. However, I think the text never made it to XEP-0045. I'll check on that. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
