On 19 Jan 2017, at 14:14, Michal Piotrowski <[email protected]> wrote: > I know I asked quite some questions already but I have more. > The protoXEP currently describes response to the client only in successful > case. How should the response look like if, from some reasons, the bind > operation doesn't succeed or is not allowed? For example from reasons > described in RFC 6120 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6120#section-7.6.2
That’s a jolly good question. I’ll have to think a bit about that when I do my next set of updates. If anyone has suggestions, please share. /K > > > Best regards > Michal Piotrowski > [email protected] > > On 19 January 2017 at 12:05, Michal Piotrowski > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 19 January 2017 at 11:58, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > The other XEP is likely to say that a user can send an iq to the archive > saying something like <archive-read xmlns… contact=‘[email protected]’ > id=‘1’/> and the archive would then remember that state. When generating the > unread list on bind2, the archive would send it for any jid that has sent a > message to the user since the last read id for that jid. Does that make > sense? (How the server stores that internally is up to it, but I can think of > a number of sensible options, depending on the storage of the archive). > > Yes it does make sense. > I already can't wait to see the "other XEP". > > > Best regards > Michal Piotrowski > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
