Re: [Standards] XEP-0115 1.4pre1

2007-07-11 Thread Ian Paterson

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

I've made a first pass at updating XEP-0115 (Entity Capabilities) in
line with recent list discussion:
  


This looks like a good first pass.

- In section 1.2 How it Works:

1. If Benvolio is publishing caps with a different 'node' but the same 
'ver' then I don't need to perform another disco#info. So can you make 
that clear from the outset by giving Benvolio a different node attribute 
to Romeo in the example?



- When generating the ver attribute (section 5):

1. It would be more secure to include a delimiter character between the 
various parts of the string E. The delimiter should be a '' character 
since it may not appear in an XML attribute value.


2. The big-endian array of bytes output by the hash function should be 
converted directly to a base64 string, since converting it to a 
hexadecimal string first only serves to double the length of the ver 
attribute.



- Discovering Capabilities (Section 6.2)

Why should the client pick a random JID from that list?

Why is the disco#info query sent to a node of node#ver (see section 
1.2 too). Why should the capabilities supported by the base 
installation of the application without plugins or other add-ons be 
returned, and not the capabilities that the client currently offers 
(i.e. those that correspond to the hash value)?


Insert a point  saying that clients SHOULD (MUST?) calculate the hash of 
the returned identity and features to confirm that they correspond to 
value of the 'ver' attribute (to prevent caps cache poisoning).


- Ian



Re: [Standards] XEP-0115 1.4pre1

2007-07-11 Thread Olivier Goffart
Le mercredi 11 juillet 2007, Ian Paterson a écrit :
 Why is the disco#info query sent to a node of node#ver (see section
 1.2 too). 

I had the same interrogation :   Why are we still using a node attribute at 
all ?  Both in the presence and in the disco element it is useless.
But it is probably for backward compatibility with the old XEP-0115.

Also, i think the meaning of the deprecated ext attribute should be more 
documented in order to produce client compatible with the old XEP
 


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [Standards] XEP-0115 1.4pre1

2007-07-11 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
Ian Paterson wrote:
 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
 I've made a first pass at updating XEP-0115 (Entity Capabilities) in
 line with recent list discussion:
   
 
 This looks like a good first pass.
 
 - In section 1.2 How it Works:
 
 1. If Benvolio is publishing caps with a different 'node' but the same
 'ver' then I don't need to perform another disco#info. So can you make
 that clear from the outset by giving Benvolio a different node attribute
 to Romeo in the example?
 
 
 - When generating the ver attribute (section 5):
 
 1. It would be more secure to include a delimiter character between the
 various parts of the string E. The delimiter should be a '' character
 since it may not appear in an XML attribute value.

No objections here. How about also formatting the category and type
information as category / type since that is how we usually show
them (e.g., client/pc)?

 2. The big-endian array of bytes output by the hash function should be
 converted directly to a base64 string, since converting it to a
 hexadecimal string first only serves to double the length of the ver
 attribute.

Done.

 - Discovering Capabilities (Section 6.2)
 
 Why should the client pick a random JID from that list?

It shouldn't. Leftover text from the previous version. Removed.

 Why is the disco#info query sent to a node of node#ver (see section
 1.2 too). Why should the capabilities supported by the base
 installation of the application without plugins or other add-ons be
 returned, and not the capabilities that the client currently offers
 (i.e. those that correspond to the hash value)?

More leftover text. Removed.

 Insert a point  saying that clients SHOULD (MUST?) calculate the hash of
 the returned identity and features to confirm that they correspond to
 value of the 'ver' attribute (to prevent caps cache poisoning).

Done.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


Re: [Standards] XEP-0115 1.4pre1

2007-07-11 Thread Ian Paterson

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

Ian Paterson wrote:
  

- In section 1.2 How it Works:

1. If Benvolio is publishing caps with a different 'node' but the same
'ver' then I don't need to perform another disco#info. So can you make
that clear from the very outset by giving Benvolio a different node 
attribute to Romeo in the example?



Any objections to changing 'http://exodus.jabberstudio.org/caps' to 
'http://psi-im.org/caps' in the second presence stanza in section 1.2 
(i.e. the one from '[EMAIL PROTECTED]/230193')?



Why is the disco#info query sent to a node of node#ver (see section
1.2 too). Why should the capabilities supported by the base
installation of the application without plugins or other add-ons be
returned, and not the capabilities that the client currently offers
(i.e. those that correspond to the hash value)?



More leftover text. Removed.
  


OK, thanks. In that case, in Section 1.2 the text: '(note that the 
disco#info query is sent to a node of node#ver)' and #{ver} in the two 
disco#info examples also need to be removed.


Finally, a small typo, there's a double '' character in the line below 
from section 5:
5. E = 
'client/pchttp://jabber.org/protocol/disco#infohttp://jabber.org/protocol/disco#itemshttp://jabber.org/protocol/muc'


- Ian



Re: [Standards] XEP-0115 1.4pre1

2007-07-11 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
Ian Paterson wrote:
 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
 Ian Paterson wrote:
  
 - In section 1.2 How it Works:

 1. If Benvolio is publishing caps with a different 'node' but the same
 'ver' then I don't need to perform another disco#info. So can you make
 that clear from the very outset by giving Benvolio a different node
 attribute to Romeo in the example?
 
 
 Any objections to changing 'http://exodus.jabberstudio.org/caps' to
 'http://psi-im.org/caps' in the second presence stanza in section 1.2
 (i.e. the one from '[EMAIL PROTECTED]/230193')?

That's what I had intended to do. :)

 Why is the disco#info query sent to a node of node#ver (see section
 1.2 too). Why should the capabilities supported by the base
 installation of the application without plugins or other add-ons be
 returned, and not the capabilities that the client currently offers
 (i.e. those that correspond to the hash value)?
 

 More leftover text. Removed.
   
 
 OK, thanks. In that case, in Section 1.2 the text: '(note that the
 disco#info query is sent to a node of node#ver)' and #{ver} in the two
 disco#info examples also need to be removed.

Fixed.

 Finally, a small typo, there's a double '' character in the line below
 from section 5:
 5. E =
 'client/pchttp://jabber.org/protocol/disco#infohttp://jabber.org/protocol/disco#itemshttp://jabber.org/protocol/muc'

Fixed.

http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0115-1.4.html has been updated
accordingly and changes have been checked into Subversion.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


[Standards] XEP-0115 1.4pre1

2007-07-10 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
I've made a first pass at updating XEP-0115 (Entity Capabilities) in
line with recent list discussion:

http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0115-1.4.html

http://svn.xmpp.org:18080/browse/XMPP/trunk/extensions/xep-0115.xml?r1=742r2=1035

Feedback is welcome as always.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature