[standards-jig] RFC822 style JIDs

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Nov 13 19:29:44 UTC 2002


Well, I'd prefer to leave well enough alone since we don't really know how
people want to use resources -- I can definitely see a use for '/' and '@'
and probably a few others that are forbidden by the node identifier spec.
Many such characters need to be escaped anyway when the entity provides
the resource on login (e.g., <resource><work/></resource>).

The specific concern that Justin raised was enabling JIDs to be shown in
RFC822 style, such as <stpeter at jabber.org> or (including the resource)
<stpeter at jabber.org/Work>. If I create a funky resource like
<work>office</work> then such a representation looks weird. But I see no
special reason to follow RFC822 syntax in Jabber.

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Joe Hildebrand wrote:

> I actually use @ in resources quite frequently, more from server components
> than user connections.
> 
> -- 
> Joe Hildebrand
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Justin Karneges [mailto:justin-jdev at affinix.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 9:03 PM
> > To: standards-jig at jabber.org
> > Subject: Re: [standards-jig] RFC822 style JIDs
> > 
> > 
> > I agree with putting the same restrictions as the node to the 
> > resource.  I 
> > guess the question really, is are there any current implementations / 
> > applications that utilize these characters we wish to restrict?
> > 
> > Personally, I've only witnessed these characters on rare 
> > occasions.  I've seen 
> > resources like "windows/home" or "Psi at work", but these are 
> > hand crafted and 
> > thus not a problem (future servers could deny these resources 
> > with an error, 
> > no change needed in the clients).
> > 
> > The only problematic resource I've seen is "Jabber Instant 
> > Messenger", which 
> > interestingly does not use any of the characters we are 
> > discussing, but 
> > instead uses spaces, which JEP-0029 does not allow.  That 
> > considered, it is 
> > arguably easier to put a restriction on " | & | ' | / | : | < 
> > | > | @, since 
> > nobody uses them.  Putting a restriction on spaces is going 
> > to require a JIM 
> > awareness campaign.
> > 
> > So maybe there could be a bigger debate about whether or not 
> > resources should 
> > be allowed to contain spaces.  After all, you might want a 
> > space in your 
> > groupchat nickname (at least moreso than any of these other 
> > weird characters 
> > we'd like to restrict).  One possibility is that the resource 
> > could be 
> > URL-encoded.  So a space would become %20.  Maybe the server 
> > could do this 
> > conversion on-the-fly as an optional transitional feature.
> > 
> > With that in mind, I think it should not be a problem at all 
> > to add a few more 
> > character restrictions to JEP-0029 and call it good.
> > 
> > -Justin
> > 
> > On Tuesday 12 November 2002 01:56 pm, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > > Why not go all the way and apply the node identifier 
> > restrictions to the
> > > resource identifier? Then the following would be disallowed:
> > >
> > >    " | & | ' | / | : | < | > | @
> > >
> > > Those need to be escaped now, but would anyone be seriously 
> > hindered if
> > > they were disallowed?
> > >
> > > Since JEP-0029 is deferred, it's probably best to discuss 
> > this on the
> > > xmppwg list, but it can't hurt to find out what people's 
> > feelings are
> > > here.
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter Saint-Andre
> > > Jabber Software Foundation
> > > http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php
> > >
> > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Justin Karneges wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > JEP-0029 proposes a JID definition:
> > > > http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0029.html
> > > >
> > > > Would it also be worthwhile to add additional restriction to the
> > > > Resource, to exclude angle brackets?  This way, full JIDs could be
> > > > represented in a simple, parsable, RFC822-style text format:
> > > >
> > > >   Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org/Work>
> > > >
> > > > Since Jabber is often attributed to email, it would be 
> > nice if JIDs could
> > > > be represented in the same way as an email address.
> > > >
> > > > -Justin
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Standards-JIG mailing list
> > > > Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> > > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Standards-JIG mailing list
> > > Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Standards-JIG mailing list
> > Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list