[Standards] [Fwd: [Council] meeting minutes, 2007-05-16]

Mridul Muralidharan mridul at sun.com
Tue May 29 18:31:27 UTC 2007


Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 May 2007 8:39 am, Ian Paterson wrote:
>> Dave Cridland wrote:
>>> I see no technical advantage in changing [resources] to a random string.
>> Well, how about the advantage that random resources seem to be the only
>> feasable way to avoid presence leaks? (see previous posts)
> 
> This could use more explanation.  Do you have a previous post to refer to?
> 
>> Admittedly RFC 3920 does not specifically say, "A resource identifier
>> MUST NOT be used as an undefined publishing channel between users"
>> (perhaps it should?). However it does say, "A resource identifier is
>> opaque to both servers and other clients".
> 
> The resource is opaque, but technically so is the whole JID.  I don't see the 
> problem with making any part of it look nice.

My bare jid is my 'address' in xmpp and so not opaque.
In my business card, I could put my bare jid and that would be a means 
of reaching me : just like my emailid/etc - but I doubt if anyone would 
put their full jid :)
There is a specific meaning associated with bare jid which is outside 
the context of a single session.


> 
>> Several clients (IMHO 
>> correctly) take that to mean "opaque to others, period". They therefore
>> generate a random resource and they don't display other clients'
>> resources to the user.
> 
> Then how would you handle multiple resources in a client, and without PEP?  
> Keep in mind that resources have been around for years and years now.  You 
> can't say that displaying the resource value is an incorrect practice.


For most cases (I do agree, not all), why would a client need to 
specifically address a resource ?
Communicating with the most available resource would happen 
automatically while talking to bare jid...


Regards,
Mridul

> 
> -Justin




More information about the Standards mailing list