Curtis King wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: > >> >> 3921.Section 5.1.1 - "In addition, the user's server MUST broadcast >> initial presence from the user's new available resource to any of the >> user's existing available resources (if any)." >> I think this is pretty clear in stating that presence is to be sent to >> existing resources 'if any' (and not the 'new available resource'). > > It's not clear because what does "existing available resources" mean?
Explicit use of 'new available resource' and 'if any' should clarify that ? If someone wants to mis-read it on purpose, sure that is possible through out the rfc's - it is after all an engineering document ! imo, it is not ambiguous - nor is it bugprone or problematic. So I hope the change being affected is not in the name of clarifying it - iirc, this is the expected behavior from all servers today, ditto for clients (who use this). - Mridul > You can read it either way because the new available resource is a > existing available resource ;-) It needs to-be clarified which 3921bis > does. These type of language issues happen with any successful RFC and > is why there have been bis releases of SMTP, IMAP, POP3, etc...... > Implementers will just sort out any fallout from the changes or the > product will disappear because users will choose the working product ;-) > I have found after a bis release interoperability does improve. > > ck >
