[Standards] Multiple resource binding

Peter Waher Peter.Waher at clayster.com
Wed Jul 2 12:09:50 UTC 2014

Hello Dave & Peter. Thanks a lot for your responses. I’ll forward these to the UPnP forum, where the question arose.
Best regards,

From: Dave Cridland [mailto:dave at cridland.net]
Sent: den 1 juli 2014 11:51
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] Multiple resource binding

Most XMPP servers use the resource name as a key into a lookup table, and overstamp any inbound stanza with the client's (single) full jid before forwarding. This does a number of useful things: Firstly, it eliminates any possibility of a client using the wrong from address, and secondly it eliminates any need for the server to valdiate and/or stringprep the supplied address. For these and other reasons, the server implementors generally pushed back hard against XEP-0193 and similar mechanisms.

I'm personally in the anti-XEP-0193 camp, and I've not seen anything that suggests this should change.

RFC 6120 doesn't allow multiple resource bindings to happen; however it's not tremendously explicit. It does, however, say at one point that:

   A server SHOULD allow an entity to

   maintain multiple connected resources simultaneously, where each

   connected resource is associated with a distinct XML stream and is

   differentiated from the other connected resources by a distinct


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpeter at stpeter.im]
Sent: den 1 juli 2014 12:29
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] Multiple resource binding

On 7/1/14, 9:34 AM, Peter Waher wrote:

> Hello


> A short question, hopefully somebody knows: Does XMPP, according to

> RFC 6120, allow for multiple resource names to be used (or multiple

> resource binding to be made) over the same connection? Or does every

> resource need a proper connection? Or can I simply invent my resource

> names as I go along (as long as I send presence), and if I don’t

> specify a resource name in a message, the “default resource name”,

> i.e. the bound one, is implicitly used?


> I noticed XEP-0193 (now obsoleted) discusses this, and it says the

> recommendations were not introduced in RFC 6120. Does this mean this

> is not possible, or does it mean it is done differently? Searched RFC

> 6120, but didn’t find anything about multiple resources.

We discussed this in the XMPP WG, and decided against pursuing it. Thus a bare JID can have multiple full JIDs associated with it, but only by means of separate sessions over separate connections.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20140702/1e06f9ff/attachment.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list