I've been thinking about 296, and I'm still not happy with this 'unlock on any presence even if it's irrelevant' thing.
My preference is to say something like: SHOULD (or MUST) unlock on a change of availability (available/FFC <> Away/NA <> DND <> unavailable) and MAY unlock on other changes. The current text, and Matt's preference is: MUST unlock on ... any <presence/> update. My argument is that unlocking on all presence will result in many messages being sent to the bare JID unnecessarily, which creates a bad experience for any users of multiple concurrent sessions and is exasperated by the clients putting extra details into their presence . Matt's argument is that there exists a client that encourages people to never change availability and that it's more important to address this case. My suggestion to resolve this is to add a 'requirements' section to the start of XEP-0296 explaining what the objectives are. If we can agree on objectives, the rest should flow out sensibly. /K
