On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:07:24 +0100
Pedro Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> On Oct 6, 2008, at 5:27 PM, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> 
> > Ok, I can understand your suggestions now. However, you're missing  
> > one point: What advantage do we get by a resource that has no  
> > meaing? IMO, nothing. A static resource just makes it easier for  
> > everyone, IMO. Replacing the connection, etc.
> 
> No it does not, because you don't want a connection replaced. you  
> want a controlled take-over of an old session. You want a new  
> connection to arrive and tell the server "Hey, I'm session-ID X and
> I want to take over it".

Hmm, you helped me to understand the case. Do we have a way to at least
specify the old session-ID?

> Abruptly taking over the other connection makes it harder for proper  
> stanza re-routing.
> 
> Besides, we already know that some servers will not allow you to  
> control the resource. Also, re-using the resource opens the previous  
> discusses presence leaks problems.
> 
> 
> > IMO, you're suggestion to resume a session is really good, so the  
> > resource could get a session ID then. But until we have a XEP that  
> > does that, I'd like to keep it the way we have it and make it  
> > possible to use both - once we can resume sessions, clients that  
> > support that could ask for a random resource, while other clients  
> > still get a static one.
> 
> Sure. I said a couple of mails back, I have no problem that the bis  
> RFC says something like "respect the resource the client sends". I  
> was just arguing that it is a bad default, going forward, and we  
> should move to a network where the resource is plumbing, non-visible  
> to end users.
> 
> As I (hopefully) demonstrated in the past emails, all the current
> use cases (resource identification and capabilities) are better
> solved using Disco.
> 
> 
> > Plus I see one problem with resuming a session: You don't know
> > what got lost. So we also need wide XEP-0198 implementation.
> > Otherwise we can't resend on resume what got lost.
> 
> Sure: session resume requires link-level acks. Have you read 198? It  
> talks about resumed sessions here: http://xmpp.org/extensions/ 
> xep-0198.html#resumption
> 
> Best regards,


-- 

Pavel Šimerda
Freelancer v oblasti počítačových sítí, komunikace a bezpečnosti
Web: http://www.pavlix.net/
Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net
OpenID: pavlix.net

Reply via email to