[xmpp] Determination of JID

Florian Zeitz <florob@babelmonkeys.de> Sat, 03 July 2010 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <florob@babelmonkeys.de>
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 33E1B3A6860 for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jul 2010 08:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.351
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, 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 X2VPrGXTMohq for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jul 2010 08:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from babelmonkeys.de (v64231.topnetworks.de [82.197.159.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 908BF3A67F6 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jul 2010 08:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xdsl-213-196-252-180.netcologne.de ([213.196.252.180] helo=[192.168.0.38]) by babelmonkeys.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <florob@babelmonkeys.de>) id 1OV4WR-0002kA-Or for xmpp@ietf.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 17:20:51 +0200
Message-ID: <4C2F554B.309@babelmonkeys.de>
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 17:20:43 +0200
From: Florian Zeitz <florob@babelmonkeys.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: XMPP Working Group <xmpp@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [xmpp] Determination of JID
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: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:20:46 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I have been rereading section 4.2.6 of 3920bis-09, because I was
wondering about the strange behaviour of a new service that shall remain
unnamed.
That aside, while reading I stumbled across the following text:
"A client MUST NOT attempt to guess at its JID but instead MUST consider
its JID to be whatever the server returns to it during SASL negotiation
(bare JID) or resource binding (full JID)."

Is there really a case where the server returns our bare JID during SASL
negotiation?
After some looking around and discussion in jdev@ it seems to me that
the only case we might determine the bare JID from the SASL negotiations
result, is that we specified a authorization ID (which according to
section 6.2.8 MUST be the bare JID) and were able to log in.
However that seems like a edge case to me. Ss resource binding is MTN
anyway I think it might be less confusing to tell implementers to just
always use the full JID from resource binding.
Thoughts?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkwvVUoACgkQ0JXcdjR+9YTvQQCghsaG0WVjXupKT7GY7Ow6dfpu
SNEAoLMfi/lKwo/L0TzSatwKmx+E3vCv
=iCnl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----