Subject: [xmpp] 3921bis - not sending presence after errors

From: Kevin Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:40:48 +0100

In assorted places (e.g. 4.5.2), it's said that you don't send
presence after receiving a presence error. Is this the right thing to
do? An error could be temporary.

For a really really contrived example:

1) User broadcasts
2) Server relays to contact.
3) User broadcasts huge stanza
4) Server relays
5) Contact's server rejects
6) User broadcasts unavailable
7) Server doesn't relay, because the huge staza caused an error.

I'd say that you send the presence stanza irrespective of having
previously received an error.

/K

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:57:49 +0200

> previously received an error.

I'm not immediately seeing this text, could you point to a specific
sentence? IIRC the only time we recommend sending a presence error is
when the contact has moved to a new JID, in which case it seems
appropriate to no longer send presence to the old JID.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Philipp Hancke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:12:07 +0200

> appropriate to no longer send presence to the old JID.

4.4.2 or 4.5.2:
# The last presence stanza received from the contact during the user's 
presence session was not of type "error" or "unsubscribe".

This is already in 3921 (5.1.2):
(3) from whom the server has not received a presence error during the 
user's session (as well as to any of the user's other available resources).

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:52:50 +0200

> presence session was not of type "error" or "unsubscribe".

Right, thanks.

Given that we're not encouraging presence errors (in general), it might
be appropriate to change this text to:

   2.  The last presence stanza received from the contact during the
       user's presence session was not of type "unsubscribe" or
       "unsubscribed".

> user's session (as well as to any of the user's other available resources).

Indeed. But in 3921bis we have tried to clarify when to send presence
stanzas of type "error" or presence stanzas of type "unsubscribe" or
"unsubscribed". I'll need to review the entire document to see if we
still encourage presence errors at all, but I think we don't.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Philipp Hancke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:03:39 +0200

>        user's presence session was not of type "unsubscribe" or

WFM.

>        or "unsubscribed".

No? unsubscribed means that I no longer get your presence, you may still 
be subscribed to my presence and want updates.

> still encourage presence errors at all, but I think we don't.

I think the only place where they are used is by the local server when 
failing to reach a remote domain.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:00:54 +0200

> be subscribed to my presence and want updates.

You're right.

> failing to reach a remote domain.

Right, so the server would not be receiving such a stanza, the client would.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Kevin Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:38:59 +0100

> Right, so the server would not be receiving such a stanza, the client would.

So is the outcome here that the 'of type "error" or' gets removed?

/K

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:47:15 +0200

> So is the outcome here that the 'of type "error" or' gets removed?

Precisely:

   The last presence stanza received from the contact during
   the user's presence session was not of type "unsubscribe".

/psa

---

From: Kevin Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:05:37 +0100

WFM.

/K