On Jul 15, 2008, at 5:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Send Standards mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Standards digest..." Today's Topics: 1. another special-purpose list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Saint-Andre) 2. OT [Fwd: Reminder: Jabber Server Load Test Tomorrow] (Peter Saint-Andre) 3. Re: thread destruction (Peter Saint-Andre) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:44:22 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Standards] another special-purpose list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: XMPP Extension Discussion List <[email protected]>, Jabber/XMPP software development list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I've created another special-purpose discussion list, this one for mobile applications and optimizations of XMPP technologies. Naturally enough it's called [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile Tell all your friends! /psa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 7338 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080714/2eb38845/attachment-0001.bin ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:52:34 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Standards] OT [Fwd: Reminder: Jabber Server Load Test Tomorrow] To: XMPP Extension Discussion List <[email protected]>, Jabber/XMPP software development list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" FYI in case anyone would like to help the IETF test their new XMPP service. :) -------- Original Message -------- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:41:05 -0700 Subject: Reminder: Jabber Server Load Test Tomorrow From: Alexa Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As noted last week, we recently deployed a new IETF Jabber server (ejabbered) and we would like to load test it before the Dublin meeting. Tomorrow, Tuesday, July 15 at 10am PT (1PM ET and 5pm GMT) you are officially invited to log into the IETF Jabber Hallway or various WG Chatrooms and chat with your fellow community members. We will be monitoring the performance of the server from 10-11am PT, so the more people online and using the Jabber Chatrooms the better. For more information about the IETF Jabber services, please see here: http://jabber.ietf.org/ Thank you, Alexa ----------- Alexa Morris / Executive Director / IETF 48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117, Fremont, CA 94538 Phone: +1.510.492.4089 / Fax: +1.510.492.4001 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Managed by Association Management Solutions (AMS) Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning www.amsl.com <http://www.amsl.com/> _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 7338 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080714/6e79a62a/attachment-0001.bin ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:28:10 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Standards] thread destruction To: XMPP Extension Discussion List <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Someone pointed out to me the following discrepancy between XEP-0085 and XEP-0201... XEP-0085 says: Upon receiving a <gone/> event, a client MUST NOT re-use the same Thread ID and MUST generate a new Thread ID for any subsequent chat messages sent to the conversation partner. BTW the <gone/> state is defined as follows: *** User has not interacted with the chat interface, system, or device for a relatively long period of time (e.g., 2 minutes), or has terminated the chat interface (e.g., by closing the chat window). *** XEP-0201 says: An entity ... SHOULD NOT destroy the thread if a human user merely disengages from the chat session (e.g., by closing a window in a client interface). Clearly these two recommendations are in conflict, so we need to reconcile them. I'm not yet sure which way I lean. Feedback is welcome. Seeing no feedback, I'll weigh in. :) XEP-0085 defines the protocol for chat state notifications. When we defined that protocol, it made sense to say that a thread is tied to a chat interface because the protocol is all about whether the person you're chatting with in a one-to-one chat session is paying attention to the chat interface. (Yes, XEP-0085 makes a passing mention of chat state notifications in groupchat rooms, but the focus is on one-to-one chat sessions.) XEP-0201 talks about threads in general, not threads in relation to chat interfaces or one-to-one chat sessions. In particular, one of the ideas behind XEP-0201 is that a thread might last across XMPP sessions, and certainly that a conversation can continue after a chat interface has been destroyed. [IIRC, we started to work on XEP-0201 after we realized that the concept of a "conversation" was not clear in XEP-0136 (Message Archiving) and XEP-0155 (Stanza Session Negotiation).] Another input is the concept of a "chat session" from rfc3921bis. There I defined a chat session as a somewhat large number of messages sent within a relatively brief period of time -- a kind of conversational burst, if you will. Now, I realize that all these ideas are somewhat vague, but that's because we can't neatly demarcate a chat session as (say) more than 10 messages exchanged in less than 5 minutes. We all engage in chat sessions every day, and we know them when we're in them, but there is no hard-and-fast definition of a chat session. Furthermore, if we map (say) newsgroup or web forum messages to XMPP messages of type "normal" then clearly threads can last across XMPP sessions. And that's not even to mention threads in groupchat rooms, where you might have more than one conversation thread happening at once. Clearly, threads can mean different things in the context of different message types, and if we're going to define thread handling we need to think about what threads mean for messages of type "chat", "groupchat", "normal", and even "headline". However, even in the context of "chat" messages I think the rule "MUST destroy the thread when you receive a <gone/> event" in XEP-0085 is too strong. Unfortunately, the rule "SHOULD NOT destroy the thread if the other party disengages from the chat interface" in XEP-0201 is merely negative and doesn't provide any positive guidance to client developers about when to generate a new thread ID. So my conclusion is that further thought is required. :) /psa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 7338 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080715/3c79cebf/attachment.bin ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [email protected] http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards End of Standards Digest, Vol 56, Issue 16 *****************************************
