[JDEV] jabberd patch
thoutbeckers at splendo.com
Thu Feb 27 08:53:56 CST 2003
"Matthew A. Miller" <linuxwolf at outer-planes.no-ip.com> wrote on 26-2-
>The more I read this thread, the more I agree with both sides...
>Is there middle ground to be had? What if XMPP were defined in such a
>way that if a connection/session attempted to auth as an already online
>one, it was up to the server. If the server decided it was allowed, it
>sent the appropriate iq-error to the original connection (302?) along
>with the disconnect. If the server decided it wasn't, it sent a 409 or
>405 iq-error to the new connection along with the diconnect.
>Does the above sound reasonable? If so, I'll make a point of
>approaching the XMPP I-D authors on it.
In the current XMPP spec (draft-ietf-xmpp-core-04) we can find this:
The following codes are defined for stream-level errors:
302 - Redirect
400 - Bad XML
404 - Unknown Host
410 - Gone
500 - Internal Server Error
505 - Version Not Supported
I'd like to see 409 included here as well.
409 is already including amongst the standard error, so it's can be
used for denying authentication:
409 (Conflict) - Code 409 is returned when a request cannot be
fulfilled because of an inherent conflict (e.g., because a client
attempts to authorize a resouce name that is already in use). "
The description would have to be changed a little too since it's not
Software Engineer @ Splendo
More information about the JDev