[Standards] XEP-0115: invalid example + node in disco results
stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Jul 2 18:19:39 UTC 2008
Pedro Melo wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2008, at 11:18 PM, Tobias Markmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
>> <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>> Tobias Markmann wrote:
>> First of all kostix from tkabber found an invalid example in XEP-0115
>> under http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0115.html#discover . Example
>> 4 should be:
>> <iq from='romeo at montague.lit/orchard' id='disco1'
>> to='juliet at capulet.lit/balcony' type='result'>
>> Currently the query tag is close before node attribute.
>> Typo fixed.
>> The next thing is I'm upgrading pidgins caps support and some question
>> arise from time to time.
>> Is the node attribute in the query tag required in a disco result
>> since the XEPs' examples include it but the scheme doesn't tell
>> anything about it.
>> I think it is recommended, but if the processing application doesn't
>> receive it in the disco result it needs to process the disco anyway.
>> So if I send a query with node
>> 'http://code.google.com/p/exodus#QgayPKawpkPSDYmwT/WM94uAlu0=' can i
>> expect the result includes a node attribute too?
>> If yes I could easily compare the hash inside the node to the self
>> generated hash of the query contents and cache it on match.
>> Yes that seems best. I think we can make it required if that would be
>> helpful. However, the client should remember it based on the IQ id.
>> Okay. How should a client respond if it requests disco for a node with
>> the caps hash of the previous presence though receives a disco result
>> with a node url including a different hash?
You're not checking the disco NodeID, you're checking the disco#info
against the caps hash you have on file for that user. Or so it seems to me.
> Did you receive a new presence from that client between the moment you
> sent your IQ request and you got the IQ reply? If yes, and if the hash
> in said presence is the same as the response, then I would make it
> "business as usual". Basically, you accept that the response is
> consistent with the current caps hash for that client.
> In a general way, I would say:
> * if the hash matches the payload of the IQ response, then you can
> cache it for future use;
Agreed, business as usual.
> * if the hash does not match the payload; you cannot cache it (as per
> spec), but you should use it to represent the client capabilities until
> you get a new caps hash.
I think you'd ping someone else in your roster if a problem like that
persists. I'm not sure what you mean by "represent the client
capabilities until you get a new caps hash" because hash doesn't match
More information about the Standards