On Jul 20, 2011, at 15:54, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Wed Jul 20 22:43:22 2011, Matthew A. Miller wrote: >> On Jul 20, 2011, at 15:34, Dave Cridland wrote: >> > I'm concerned by the final rule in ยง2.3, which suggests that *any* >> > presence update from the contact SHOULD break the lock. I think this rule >> > is fine; however I think a short discussion of when to ignore this rule >> > would be useful. >> Since I'm not aware of a situation where ignoring the rule is useful, I >> don't have any discussion to add (-: >> I can add something to the effect that "we don't know when you'd *not* want >> to unlock, but you're given some slight leeway to", or I change the SHOULD >> to MUST, or accept a contribution. > If there is only one resource online and the resource updates presence but > remains available. >
This seems reasonable. > If the locked resource updates presence but changes only <status/>. I don't agree with this one. There are clients that, most often at the explicit direction of their users, only update <status/>. - m&m > > I think it's a SHOULD, not a MUST - as I say, I'm happy with the rule, I just > think it's reasonable to say that in some cases, a client may decide that a > presence update doesn't "count". > > Dave. > -- > Dave Cridland - mailto:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected] > - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ > - http://dave.cridland.net/ > Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
