IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xmpp] probe from/to

Philipp Hancke <fippo@mail.symlynx.com> Fri, 29 January 2010 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <fippo@mail.symlynx.com>
X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 303123A686E for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:08:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id opQpvkF1p4U1 for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:08:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lectern.tobij.de (lectern.tobij.de [62.75.216.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC183A6818 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:08:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.104] (p579DC636.dip.t-dialin.net [87.157.198.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by lectern.tobij.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o0TF92Zb002971 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:09:05 +0100
Message-ID: <4B62FA09.6090609@mail.symlynx.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:08:57 +0100
From: Philipp Hancke <fippo@mail.symlynx.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, xmpp@ietf.org
References: <4B6202CF.6070702@stpeter.im> <7fc4fa881001290237l7bf59104oe32d88da6b0d1af2@mail.gmail.com> <4B62F8BD.5010409@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4B62F8BD.5010409@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [xmpp] probe from/to
X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: XMPP Working Group <xmpp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xmpp>
List-Post: <mailto:xmpp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:08:46 -0000

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 1/29/10 3:37 AM, Waqas Hussain wrote:
> 
>> There's another thing I was wondering about:
>>
>> For presence probes, "The value of the 'from' address MUST be the full
>> JID <user@domain/resource> of the user and the value of the 'to' address
>> MUST be the bare JID <contact@domain> of the contact to which the user
>> is subscribed."
>>
>> Why MUST those JIDs be that way? I can think of valid cases where a bare
>> JID may wish to probe the presence of a full JID.
> 
> The original reasoning was that a user comes online with a particular
> resource and my server sends a probe to the user's contacts (bare JID)
> on behalf of that resource (full JID). I don't know what your use cases
> are, so I'm not sure why we would change the logic we've had since 1999.

jabberd sends from the bare jid. And it does that at least since 2003.

philipp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email