Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Maciek Niedzielski wrote: >> Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-00.html#rules >> Let's say we're pinging a client which does not support ping namespace: >> >> Example 9. Ping Not Supported >> >> <iq from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/chamber' >> to='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/home' >> id='ping345' >> type='result'> >> <ping xmlns='urn:xmpp:ping'/> >> <error type='cancel'> >> <service-unavailable xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'/> >> </error> >> </iq> >> >> Now 3921bis says: >> 3. Else if the JID is of the form <[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource> and no >> connected or available resource matches the full JID, the recipient's >> server (...) MUST return a <service-unavailable/> stanza error to the >> sender if it is an IQ stanza >> >> So the reply above may mean both a pong and a not-pong, and it's >> impossible to tell the difference. > > That's right, it's impossible to tell the difference. And that's a > feature, because we try to discourage directory harvesting attacks.
So it's quite funny that server devs rushed to implement this XEP, while
it is more important to have client implementations, since server's
service-unavailable error reply always means a pong, while client's
error reply has no known meaning.
--
Maciek A: It's against natural order of reading.
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Q: Why is that?
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] A: People answering above quoted text.
Q: What's the most annoying on newsgroups?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
