Inline.
On 1/30/11 20:26, "Evgeniy Khramtsov" <[email protected]> wrote: > 31.01.2011 08:52, tpatnoe wrote: >> Our team is starting work on using XEP-283. Has anyone else looked at this >> and do they see any problems with the spec as it is currently written >> (Version 1.0)? >> >> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0283.html >> >> One item which came up in our discussion, is linking an unsubscribe from an >> old JID to a new subscribe from the new JID with a token. However, we >> decided that just including the new JID in the unsubscribe from the old JID, >> and the old JID in a subscribe from the new JID were enough. A token >> provided no more assurance of authenticity. >> > > What I really don't like in this XEP is that it contradicts the idea of > "keep clients simple". I think we can do the same using server-side > redirects (we have such error type already defined in the core RFC). In > that case a client just need to set a redirect and his/her contacts > should process presence redirects correctly. Also, redirects can be used > for temporary migration and not only for account removal. I believe you are referring to the stanza level error "gone" in section 8.3.3.5 of RFC-3920bis. We may be using that error too. We wanted to do actions pro-actively before waiting for a stanza sent from a contact. -- Tory
