Am 11.05.2010 12:16, schrieb Adrian Georgescu: > > On May 11, 2010, at 10:26 AM, Klaus Darilion wrote: > >> >> >> Am 01.04.2010 16:30, schrieb Adrian Georgescu: >>> >>> On Apr 1, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Schumann Sebastian wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Bogdan >>>> >>>> Yes, in an "ideal world", this re-publishing with BUSY and ONLINE is >>>> wanted, but the toggling not. Priorities would help (you'd receive >>>> that but not trigger anything on the user interface as the highest >>>> priority will keep its state), but we don't have them yet, so in >>>> that case the decision must be made somewhere else or not at all. >>>> >>> >>> All we need is a good client to figure out how to use these concepts, >>> right? >> >> Regarding clients: >> >> AFAIK Microsoft's Communicator SUBSCRIBEs its own presence and as soon >> as you manually set the status on one of your clients, all other >> clients >> will change its state too. > > It makes sense to keep all clients in sync somehow and subscribing to > itself already provides this data. > > But what happens with automatically derived data like keyboard > activity or on-the-phone activity, they cannot be synchronized can they? > > The PIDFs will diverge sooner or later...
Yes. I think this approach only works for manually set status. Maybe we should dig more into how MS solved it - they probably did not waited for IETF to have a solution for presence aggregation. regards Klaus _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
