According to the JEP, a user can optionally supply a 'route' attribute
to setup a proxy connection. The user will have to supply an XMPP IRI to
do so.
An XMPP IRI can optionally hold an authority component and/or a node
identifier (see section 2.3 of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-xmpp-iri-02.txt ).
While handling the route attribute, should the authority component of
the IRI be used or ignored?
What's the suggested result when the IRI holds no node identifier?
Should the route attribute be silently ignored, or should an error
(improper-addressing seems suitable) be thrown? Is it safe to try to use
the authority component address as an last-resort solution in such a case?
Guus der Kinderen wrote:
I've got two questions regarding JEP-0124 HTTP Binding.
Is there something wrong with having a larger value for 'inactivity'
(allowable inactivity period for a client) than 'wait' (longest time
that server will wait before responding to any request during the
session)? Somehow, having 'inactivity' > 'wait' seems wrong, but I'm
unable to pinpoint a logical flaw.
The 'polling' attribute specifies the minimal amount of time a client
should wait between two polling (empty) requests. Does 'between' specify
the time between the starttime of both requests, or the time between
receiving a reply of the first request and the start of the second request?
