Hello Dave & Peter. Thanks a lot for your responses. I’ll forward these to the
UPnP forum, where the question arose.
Best regards,
Peter
From: Dave Cridland [mailto:d...@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
resourcepart.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpe...@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.
Peter
