On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 02:06:20PM +0200, Daniel Gultsch wrote: > This is meant for MUC presence. Servers don't necessarily track muc joins > or other directed presences.
This is wrong, XEP-0045 notes that RFC6121 mandates that a server would broadcast an unavailable presence to all previous directed presence targets, this means the server MUST track them: Normal presence stanza generation rules apply as defined in XMPP IM [23], so that if the user sends a general unavailable presence stanza, the user's server will broadcast that stanza to the client's <room@service/nick>; as a result, there is no need for the leaving client to send directed unavailable presence to its occupant JID. It is possible that a user might not be able to gracefully exit the room by sending unavailable presence. If the user goes offline without sending unavailable presence, the user's server is responsible for sending unavailable presence on behalf of the user (in accordance with RFC 6121). > > The hint in the xep is meant for clients that might support this (sending > directed presence after receiving a pep node update) but servers that > don't. So there might be code in the client sending this but it should be > wrapped by a check if the server will support it. If that makes sense... I don’t see the benefit of doing that in the client, it only adds complexity and potentially a lot of bandwidth, while it could instead be made mandatory in the server. > > On Sat, Sep 1, 2018, 13:36 Philipp Hörist <phil...@hoerist.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > "Services will inject the hash in directed presences automatically but > > will not resend the presence if the avatar gets updated. Thus clients MAY > > resend directed available presence to all Multi-User Chats after receiving > > a 'urn:xmpp:avatar:metadata' update notification. The service will then > > inject an updated version of the hash. To avoid sending unnecassary > > presence updates, resending should only occur if the service annouces the > > 'urn:xmpp:pep-vcard-conversion:0' feature." > > > > 1. Can we not let the server resend presence after a vcard/0084 update? > > > > 2. "To avoid sending unnecassary presence updates, resending should only > > occur if the service annouces the 'urn:xmpp:pep-vcard-conversion:0' > > feature." > > > > It basically says: Dont do the things that are mentioned in this XEP if > > the server doesnt support this XEP. In this case resending presence after a > > metadata node update. I think this is implied by any XEP, that if your > > counterpart does not have support, things mentioned in this XEP do not apply > > > > regards > > Philipp -- Emmanuel Gil Peyrot
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
