Subject: [xmpp] 3921bis-13: initial inbound presence?

From: Alexander Holler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:29:26 +0200

Hello,

reading/working through 3921bis-13, I would suggest to remove 4.2.3 and 
4.2.4. In my humble opinion there is no way for the receiving server or 
client to differentiate between an initial presence and a subsequent 
presence, because the "initial" describes the state of the connection 
between the sending server (4.2.2) and his client (4.2.1). Or do I miss 
something?
Maybe 4.2.4 describes what the client should do when he receives the 
first presence from a contact, but for me this is another meaning of 
initial and not what is explained in 4.2.1.

Regards,

Alexander

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:36:56 -0600

> initial and not what is explained in 4.2.1.

Technically you're right, but no one else has ever complained about
this. To some extent, the text in 3921bis is narrative in that it walks
through the chronology of a presence session (Section 4) or the process
of establishing a bidirectional presence subscription (Section 3).
Changing all the text to be even more formal doesn't strike me as very
user-friendly -- and that's not even to mention that it would be a fair
amount of work to remove all of the narrative elements and restructure
the document.

Peter

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

---

From: Alexander Holler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:19:47 +0200

> amount of work to remove all of the narrative elements and restructure

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I seldom read RFCs topdown. ;)
Maybe I can suggest a sentence like "An inbound initial presence isn't 
distinguishable and is treated like any other inbound presence" in those 
two paragraphs. That would remove any doubts.
Personally I would go so far and would remove the rest of the text and 
would forward the reader to another section (e.g. with "see below"), to 
avoid text duplication.

Regards,

Alexander