On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Matthew Wild [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought I recalled some discussion on the lists already regarding
this, but I haven't been able to find it. On resource binding, the RFC
says the server MAY modify the client's chosen resource. Is there a
reason that it
IMO, it's a bad idea for the server to change the resource. The server
SHOULD provide some way to let the client generate a resource, but
this should not be the default, IMO. Usuaully, you want a static
resource so new connections can replace the old, likely broken one.
You see on GTalk
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 09:42:43 +0100
Kevin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Matthew Wild [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought I recalled some discussion on the lists already regarding
this, but I haven't been able to find it. On resource binding, the
RFC says the
I don't particularly like where we ended up on resource generation. IMHO
now it's too complicated, so I'd be +1 to your proposed change.
Same here. As long as the server is able to generate a resource name
for you, I don't see much point in returning back different resource
names than the one
Hi,
To start a link-local conversation with XEP-0174 between two clients,
any of the 2 clients can initiate the stream. If the 2 contacts start
to chat at the same time, we may have 2 streams initiated in both
directions. It seems this case does not happen often because users
usually don't start
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Matthew Wild [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While it is MAY as it is now I believe servers will begin implementing
it as a consequence of all the discussions about leaking presence
through user-specified resources. It's as good as a recommendation. I
would simply
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Eric Will [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Matthew Wild [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While it is MAY as it is now I believe servers will begin implementing
it as a consequence of all the discussions about leaking presence
through
Matthew Wild [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they type it manually then they know what they are doing, and when
they come to type the stanza for resource binding, they will read the
RFC and see that it recommends not specifying a resource :)
Which is IMO a painfully bad idea for users with
Am 05.10.2008 um 03:05 schrieb Matthew Wild:
Personally I agree with you, I would probably continue to use a static
resource. However it is against the spirit of XMPP to allow the
possibility of presence leaks, so I think it is best that the RFC says
that clients SHOULD ask for a
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Jonathan Schleifer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is IMO a painfully bad idea for users with instable connections.
They will have thousands of resources online after a short while and
you don't know which to msg. Very, very bad idea, IMO. Makes it totally
10 matches
Mail list logo
