[Standards-JIG] Re: discoing a bare JID

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Jan 19 20:54:00 UTC 2005

In article <20050119195900.GA22317 at localhost>,
 Ralph Meijer <jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:40:36AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > (1) We create a new disco identity for bare JIDs. What shall we call it? 
> > In essence when you disco a bare JID, the response comes from a server 
> > on behalf of a registered account. It's not really a user, since that 
> > tends to imply a human, and a registered account could represent a bot 
> > or some application interface. We already have an existing "server" 
> > category, so "server/account" might make sense (though that might lead 
> > people to think this entity is an "account server" as opposed to an "IM 
> > server"). Another option would be a new disco category of "account", 
> > with several potential types (I can think of "registered" and 
> > "anonymous", but there may be others). I lean towards a new category and 
> > an identity of "account/registered" for most bare JIDs.
> What we do here is define the identity of an account that 'belongs' to some
> entity. It is a placeholder for actual clients connecting with a particular
> resource. Maybe we should differentiate between types of account owners
> (natural persons, bots) using the entity type? I'm +1 for using a separate
> category of 'account'.

Hmm. How is the server going to know what kind of entity created the 
account? It seems that we would need disco#info publish, as we have 
disco#items publish (http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0030.html#publish), 
or some sophisticated form of registration. Even so, I could have a bot 
log into my account (stpeter at jabber.org/stpeterbot) even at the same 
time that I log into it as a normal old human user. So I don't see a 
good way for the server to differentiate between different types of 
account users -- better, I think, to differentiate between different 
types of accounts (ones that have been registered, admin-provisioned, 
that allow anonymous login, etc.).

Or so it seems to me right now.


More information about the Standards mailing list