[standards-jig] RFC822 style JIDs

David Waite mass at akuma.org
Mon Nov 18 22:56:21 UTC 2002


Dave Smith wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>It seems kinda funky that we do case-insensitive comparisons but 
>superimpose the requirement for case. Of course, if I _do_ send a 
>packet to the case-folded JID, how is the router going to stop me? I 
>don't even think this is something that we enforce today, and for good 
>reason.
>
>Diz
>
It won't neccessarily stop you, but it will not recognize the address. 
It will return the message as if the target endpoint does not exist. In 
other words, in current implementations Á != á ( or [  ́ + A ] for that 
matter.)

-David Waite

>On Wednesday, Nov 13, 2002, at 13:08 America/Denver, Craig Kaes wrote:
>
>  
>
>>As long as we're opening up this can of worms, how do folks at large 
>>like the node identifier requirement that they be compared in a case 
>>insensitive manner but case must maintained?  In implementing a simple 
>>pubsub mechanism, this forces one to maintain a case-folded 
>>canonicalized JID (for queries like "show all subscriptions held by 
>>foo at bar.com") as well as the JID that was sent in (for sending of 
>>notifications to "FoO at bar.com").  Why can't I just send to the 
>>case-folded canonicalized JID?  The current implementations may not 
>>route cacnonicalized JIDs having multibyte characters correctly, but 
>>that is no reason to muddy the spec with this requirement, IMHO.
>>
>>--C
>>
>>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.
>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Standards-JIG mailing list
>>Standards-JIG at jabber.org
>>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
>>
>>    
>>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGP 8.0 (Build 349) Beta
>
>iQA/AwUBPdk1LWDRN3IVRx7DEQJmWwCg9LMrOfgNQuHM/TWcXDlsFwAWYx4AoMYc
>8gyAz2trbTf7pMlIiHlvzxYr
>=6H3V
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>_______________________________________________
>Standards-JIG mailing list
>Standards-JIG at jabber.org
>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
>  
>





More information about the Standards mailing list