[Standards] Disco presence subscription confusion

2014-06-11 Thread Graham King 
Hi,

In XEP-0030 (Service Discovery - 
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0030.html#security), it says the server MUST 
return a service-unavailable/ error if:

 The requesting entity is not authorized to receive presence from the target 
 entity (i.e., via a presence subscription of type both or from)

That reads to me like the requesting entity needs a both or from 
subscription. That wouldn't make sense though, because a from would imply the 
target is not sharing presence with the requesting entity. To make it work I 
read it like this, capitals my additions:

 The requesting entity is not authorized to receive presence from the target 
 entity (i.e., via [THE TARGET HAVING] a presence subscription [TO THE 
 REQUESTING ENTITY] of type both or from)

Is this a correct reading? From the code I think this is how Prosody interprets 
it, and it makes intuitive sense (to me at least!). If this reading is correct, 
could I submit a patch to the XEP to clarify?

Thanks in advance,
Graham

Re: [Standards] Disco presence subscription confusion

2014-06-11 Thread Lance Stout 
On Jun 11, 2014, at 11:16 AM, Graham King gra...@gkgk.org wrote:
 
 Is this a correct reading? From the code I think this is how Prosody 
 interprets it, and it makes intuitive sense (to me at least!). If this 
 reading is correct, could I submit a patch to the XEP to clarify?


Sounds right. Send a patch.

—Lance



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [Standards] Disco presence subscription confusion

2014-06-11 Thread Graham King 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 14-06-11 11:29 AM, Lance Stout wrote:
 On Jun 11, 2014, at 11:16 AM, Graham King gra...@gkgk.org wrote:
 
 Is this a correct reading? From the code I think this is how Prosody 
 interprets it, and it makes intuitive sense (to me at least!). If this 
 reading is correct, could I submit a patch to the XEP to clarify?
 
 
 Sounds right. Send a patch.
 
 —Lance
 

Great. Here it is, attached.

Graham
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=/l4e
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
diff --git a/extensions/xep-0030.xml b/extensions/xep-0030.xml
index aaf4538..ac3c023 100644
--- a/extensions/xep-0030.xml
+++ b/extensions/xep-0030.xml
@@ -674,14 +674,14 @@
 pIn response to a disco#info request, the server MUST return a unavailable; error if one of the following is true:/p
 ol
   liThe target entity does not exist (no matter if the request specifies a node or not)./li
-  liThe requesting entity is not authorized to receive presence from the target entity (i.e., via a presence subscription of type both or from) or is not otherwise trusted (e.g., another server in a trusted network)./li
+  liThe requesting entity is not authorized to receive presence from the target entity (i.e., via the target having a presence subscription to the requesting entity of type both or from) or is not otherwise trusted (e.g., another server in a trusted network)./li
 /ol
   /li
   li
 pIn response to a disco#items request, the server MUST return an empty result set if:/p
 ol
   liThe target entity does not exist (no matter if the request specifies a node or not)./li
-  liThe request did not specify a node, the only items are available resources (as defined in citeRFC 3921/cite), and the requesting entity is not authorized to receive presence from the target entity (i.e., via a presence subscription of type both or from) or is not otherwise trusted (e.g., another server in a trusted network). noteHowever, the server MAY return items other than available resources (if any)./note/li
+  liThe request did not specify a node, the only items are available resources (as defined in citeRFC 3921/cite), and the requesting entity is not authorized to receive presence from the target entity (i.e., via the target having a presence subscription to the requesting entity of type both or from) or is not otherwise trusted (e.g., another server in a trusted network). noteHowever, the server MAY return items other than available resources (if any)./note/li
 /ol
   /li
 /ol


xep-0030-security-clarification.patch.sig
Description: PGP signature

[Standards] UPnP and XMPP

2014-06-11 Thread Steffen Larsen 
I haven’t heard anything from the XMPP/UPnP Liaisons, but I just stumbled over 
this on the UPnP homepage (http://upnp.org/news/2014/): 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-QpNnQrT2Ulist=UUY7zsGPIO9PRbUDv1obTBWQ

Personally I am hoping for some progress for Multi-Screen and XMPP which I have 
been working with for a while. Anyone know how I can get involved in this 
Committee? Any of you Liaisons that have been involved?

I thought it might be interesting for you guys. :-)

#Standards #XMPP #MUC #CLOUD 

-Cheers!
/Steffen

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature