[Standards] Question regarding XEP-0077 (In-Band Registration)

Todd Herman todd at apx-labs.com
Fri Sep 21 15:44:51 UTC 2012


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpeter at stpeter.im]
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 11:40 AM
> To: XMPP Standards
> Cc: Todd Herman
> Subject: Re: [Standards] Question regarding XEP-0077 (In-Band Registration)
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 9/21/12 9:32 AM, Todd Herman wrote:
> >> -----Original Message----- From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org
> >> [mailto:standards- bounces at xmpp.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Wild
> >> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 11:17 AM To: XMPP Standards
> >> Subject: Re: [Standards] Question regarding XEP-0077 (In-Band
> >> Registration)
> >>
> >> Hi Todd,
> >>
> >> On 20 September 2012 15:53, Todd Herman <todd at apx-labs.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> I wanted to confirm something in section 3.1.1 of XEP-0077.
> >>> It seems to suggest that you can register with a server prior to
> >>> authentication, meaning that no account is required.  We are
> >>> attempting to do this, using OpenFire, right after TLS but before
> >>> SASL.  The appropriate Iq is sent and we get the correct response.
> >>> However, when we send the next Iq with the username and password,
> we
> >>> get back a Failure element with “Not-Authorized”.  I wanted to be
> >>> sure that I am understanding section 3.1.1 correctly before I pursue
> >>> other
> >> options.
> >>
> >> Which iq do you send and which response do you get? Could you perhaps
> >> paste an example XML log?
> >>
> >> Is in-band registration definitely enabled on the server?
> >
> > I apologize for not responding sooner but the issue is now resolved.
> > It was an issue with SASL still happening do to an asynchronous
> > operation running in the background.  I think we may have an
> > additional question as we have a new discrepancy but we are conducting
> > some additional testing before bringing it up.  I might be able to
> > head off some questions by asking everyone what they think the term
> > "service", referenced in the XEP is referring too.
> >
> > The XEP lays out two distinct uses for in-band registration:  a
> > service registering (I assume on behalf of another user) and the user
> > registering themselves during the negotiation process with a server.
> 
> Actually, the scenarios are user registering with server (necessary in order to
> get on the network in the first place) and user registering with add-only
> service once on the network.

Ok.  I think I get you.  So we have the first one taken care of.  The user, without an account on the XMPP server itself, can register themselves then login.  If I am understanding the second server, we are talking about registering with some service, such as MUC, and NOT another method for registering with the server itself.  Is that correct?

> > We have handled the second case and are working on the first.  We
> > assumed that "service" referred to some application (client or
> > component) that already has an account and would simply use the
> > registration process to register another use.  Is this an accurate
> > assumption?
> 
> By "service" we mean something like a multi-user chat service, which you can
> access using your "home" XMPP account once you're connected to the
> network. See for instance:
> 
> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#register
> 
> Peter
> 
> - --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAlBcikUACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxoOgCgjzHIP8Lu5AVO2ZHclNSO92o
> h
> wz8AnjnOpEOBOl947PTH2TiEh4DxqjTF
> =DWTW
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Standards mailing list