On 9/10/10 11:34 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > >>> When a resource receives this push it can know that other resource has >>> requested subscription by inspecting the subscription 'none + prending >>> out', am I wrong? which is the use case of "ask=subscribe" then? >> >> You're asking that we change a core part of the protocol for the sake of >> syntactic hygiene. > > Oh no, I just ask the reason for it. Perhaps I missed something in the specs > :)
There is no reason. :) You're asking about very early decisions made in the Jabber community. We don't always have documentation for those, but you could review some of the list archives from 1999: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/ The whole scheme of states like "None + Pending Out" was a later attempt at describing the way things were. >> That's simply not going to happen at this point, but >> feel free to raise the issue on the XMPP WG list, which is the >> appropriate venue for discussion of the XMPP RFCs. >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp > > Thanks for pointing it. However, as I'm not proposing a change (but > just asking about the current specs), is this the appropriate maillist > for a question like mine? Sure. I thought you were proposing changes. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
