[standards-jig] RFC822 style JIDs

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

Dave Smith wrote:

>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 
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 

-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.
>>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 
>>>Many such characters need to be escaped anyway when the entity 
>>>the resource on login (e.g., <resource><work/></resource>).
>>>The specific concern that Justin raised was enabling JIDs to be shown 
>>>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 
>>>special reason to follow RFC822 syntax in Jabber.
>>>Peter Saint-Andre
>>>Jabber Software Foundation
>>Standards-JIG mailing list
>>Standards-JIG at jabber.org
>Version: PGP 8.0 (Build 349) Beta
>Standards-JIG mailing list
>Standards-JIG at jabber.org

More information about the Standards mailing list