Re: [Stox] Nickname Usage Conflict Resolution

Peter Saint-Andre <> Wed, 24 July 2013 02:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D6ED11E81C3 for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 19:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.014
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.014 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.585, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LMIU-Wnh4yyg for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 19:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6283611E81C0 for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 19:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ergon.local (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ABD03414B4; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:59:22 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:57:30 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: 513
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "" <>, "De Vries, Michael \[USA\]" <>
Subject: Re: [Stox] Nickname Usage Conflict Resolution
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 02:57:41 -0000

Hash: SHA1

On 7/20/13 7:48 AM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> On Jul 20, 2013, at 1:07 AM, De Vries, Michael [USA] wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>> I have a concern with the suggested possible resolutions for a 
>> Nickname Usage Conflict in the draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-00 
>> document.  In section 3.2, the document says
>> |   Alternatively [to translating the MSRP 425 message to a 
>> <conflict/> error], |   the gateway might generate a new
>> nickname request on |   behalf of the XMPP user, thus shielding
>> the XMPP client from handling |   the conflict error.
>> Additionally, section 5 says
>> |   If there is a conflict between the SIP nickname and the XMPP
>> | nickname, the SIP-to-XMPP or XMPP-to-SIP gateway is
>> responsible for |   adjusting the nickname to avoid the conflict
>> and for informing the |   SIP or XMPP client of the unique
>> nickname used to join the chatroom.
>> First, section 3.2 suggests that the gateway may choose to
>> generate a new nickname, but can instead merely forward on the
>> translated MSRP 425 or <conflict/> error, whereas section 5 says
>> that the gateway is responsible for (aka MUST) adjusting the
>> nickname in the event of a conflict.  Both of these sections
>> suggest that in the case of a nickname conflict the gateway may
>> act independently of the client to change the client-generated
>> nickname to one which is unique within the context of the
>> chatroom.  I'm not certain this is the most appropriate approach.
>> Nicknames are important in that they are needed to facilitate
>> private messaging and other features, as well as being an
>> important part of user identification.  It seems risky to
>> automatically generate a new nickname when a conflict is found,
>> instead of merely presenting the error to the user (via MSRP 425
>> message or <conflict/> error) so that they can choose a new
>> nickname via their client.  Additionally, a cursory examinatio n
>> of the XMPP, MSRP, and MUC RFCs/XEPs does not appear to show any
>> recommendation that nicknames be automatically generated in the
>> event of a conflict.
>> I believe that it would be better to require that the gateway 
>> merely forward on the translated MSRP 425 or <conflict/> error 
>> instead of attempting to address the conflict automatically, but
>> I may not sufficiently understand the reasoning behind the
>> automated nickname resolution.
> I agree. This is how things are usually handled in MSRP. When
> testing things in XMPP however, not every client is able to
> properly deal with nickname conflicts though. Peter, maybe this was
> the reason why that text was added?

I doubt that was the reason, since I don't believe in designing
protocols around buggy software. :-)

Many XMPP clients will indeed shield the user from making a decision
about the nickname (e.g., if "stpeter" is taken they will cycle
through nicks like "stpeter1" or "stpeter_" or whatever). So pushing
an error back to the originating client seems fine to me in all cases.

Question: if the gateway were to choose a nick on behalf of the
client, are we sure that the chosen nick would get communicated back
to the originating client?

In any case, I think that what Mike proposes is sensible.


- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre

Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools -
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -