[Standards] resource identifiers: a summary
Chris Mullins
chris.mullins at coversant.net
Fri Jun 1 15:36:31 CDT 2007
For your case, you might want to take a look at the Service XEP:
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dix.html
I still owe Peter something in order to get this finished off, but
bugger if I can remember what it was...
--
Chris Mullins
-----Original Message-----
From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Andrew Plotkin
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:19 PM
To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Standards] resource identifiers: a summary
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Here is a summary of the recent thread about resource identifiers...
>
> 6. Allowing a client to specify the resource identifier is not evil
and
> should not be disallowed. So I am not arguing that a server MUST
generate the
> resource identifer or override a resource identifier provided by the
client
> during resource binding. As long as client developers understand the
risks
> involved, let them do what they've always done. But we need to add
something
> about this to the security considerations in rfc3920bis and perhaps
> rfc3921bis.
Our game system uses *well-known* resource IDs for IQ-based (bot)
services. We're treating it as a feature, not merely a byproduct of poor
security.
We have a service running at bookkeeper at volity.net/volity. We want to
always have that full address (including resource string), because its
purpose is to accept IQs (disco and XML-RPC) from clients. If we got a
random resource every time the bot restarted, our lives would be harder
--
we'd have to do additional negotiation. (Either require every client to
add the bookkeeper to roster, or do a round of <message> to establish
the
resource ID.)
Is the well-known ID (for a particular JID) a legitimate use case? Or
should we be handling this some other way?
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
*
"Bush has kept America safe from terrorism since 9/11." Too bad his
job was to keep America safe *on* 9/11.
More information about the Standards
mailing list