[standards-jig] RFC822 style JIDs

Justin Karneges justin-jdev at affinix.com
Wed Nov 13 20:41:53 UTC 2002


On Wednesday 13 November 2002 11:29 am, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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.

Yes, and I completely forgot about '/', which as Matthias mentioned is 
actually used by jabberd.  This character is also not escaped in a typical 
URL resource, so I say leave it alone.  All other characters could easily be 
escaped in %XX format.

However, I think we have strayed from my main concern.

> 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.

Not only does it look weird, but it is no longer parsable as an RFC822-style 
address.  This is the issue at hand, and it is easy to solve, as it only 
requires forbidding '<' and '>'.

> But I see no special reason to follow RFC822 syntax in Jabber.

There is no real reason related to the Jabber protocol to support this, but it 
would be nice to be able to represent a full parsable JID inside pure text.

-Justin

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig




More information about the Standards mailing list