Fwd: [Psi-devel] we're gonna lose all Jive Messenger users...

[Trejkaz]

Quoting Hal Rottenberg <halr9000 at gmail.com>:
> *pong* That's the sound of the ball being back in our court.  Comments?

Remko was right.  But you know, I did some reading...

RFC 3921, Section 9.3:
   If there is a pending inbound subscription request, since the previous
   subscription request will have been recorded.  If the user has
   already granted the contact access to the user's presence
   information, the user's server SHOULD auto-reply to an inbound
   presence stanza of type "subscribe" from the contact by sending a
   presence stanza of type "subscribed" to the contact on behalf of the
   user; this rule enables the contact to resynchronize the subscription
   state if needed.

In other words, User1's server must send to User2's server (though strictly
speaking I didn't quote that part) but User2's server SHOULD NOT send it onto
User2.

HOWEVER... and this is what sucks... the specification says "SHOULD".  So it
seems Jive are allowed to be arseholes here.  I don't know why the XMPP-WG
didn't make it a MUST... it's almost annoying enough to actually join the
mailing list. ;-)

But aside from that, in my example the two users were on the same server.  I'd
love to know how Jive are going to try to explain how a server can get out of
sync with itself.  Maybe it involves temporal mechanics of some sort. :-)

TX


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.