Hello Christian, Sorry for the late reply:
On 5 Mar 2015, christian...@rechenwerk.net wrote: > So I think using the node name as a device identifier (or more > precicely: an identifier for entities that want to receive the same > push notifications and are thus registered for the same node) is > sufficient for the xmpp server. When a client sends an enable stanza > the server updates an existing record for the client's full jid with > the stanza's new 'node' value. That's actually already described in > the XEP. If we agree on semantic that is a node reprensent a device-application, I am fine indeed. Having the ability to have a human name for the node, would be handy. > One of your requirements is still not met: you have to know the > resource to enable / disable push. [...] > As I said earlier, I think the push module must check if arriving > stanzas are addressed to a push-enabled device that's currently > offline but *would be* the most available resource if it was still > online. That's also bypassing the server's routing but in a more > gentle way. > > One solution to the stolen phone problem would be an emergency-off > switch (disable all resources of the user on all nodes): > > <iq type='set' id='x97'> > <disable-all xmlns='urn:xmpp:push:0' jid='push-5.client.example' /> > </iq> What about having the ability to list all your nodes (= devices) + the ability to delete a node as owner ? That would allow you to manage them as a users. I hope this helps, -- Mickaël Rémond http://www.process-one.net/
