I'm fine with those amendments, Dave.
jack.
My use is more of a lazy hack. I want to use the anonymous JID
resource to store information about BOSH clients. For example, we
could have a number of web pages on different domains connecting via
proxy to a single BOSH service and we would like to know at a glance
the domain name of the
Cheers,
2009/9/11 Jack Moffitt j...@collecta.com:
In general, the proposed changes in v1.2 at
http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0175-1.2.html
are sound ones. I do however have some minor points to raise.
1) The current wording states that anonymous users SHOULD NOT be able
to establish
On Fri Sep 11 18:27:10 2009, Jack Moffitt wrote:
Anonymous users MAY establish relationships with services and users
if
allowed by sever policy such as presence subscriptions, multi-user
chat rooms, and pubsub subscriptions. If a server permits these
relationships, it MUST cancel such
On Sep 11, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Jack Moffitt wrote:
My use is more of a lazy hack. I want to use the anonymous JID
resource to store information about BOSH clients. For example, we
could have a number of web pages on different domains connecting via
proxy to a single BOSH service and we would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/3/09 2:34 PM, Home wrote:
--- Original message ---
From: Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk
Sent: 3/9/'09, 18:07
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andrestpe...@stpeter.im
wrote:
In my working version of the spec, I now
Most of the discussion about XEP-0175 has assumed that servers are
exposed on the public Internet (I know that's how I have looked at it,
from my perspective as an admin of the jabber.org IM service). However,
server admins might offer a more controlled or private service, such as
a for-pay
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andrestpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
In my working version of the spec, I now have:
On public servers where the same JID is reused for multiple
anonymous sessions, the server MAY ignore the resource
identifier provided by the client (if any) and
--- Original message ---
From: Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk
Sent: 3/9/'09, 18:07
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andrestpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
In my working version of the spec, I now have:
On public servers where the same JID is reused for multiple
anonymous
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/13/09 7:43 PM, Andy Skelton wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Brian Cullybcu...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13-Aug-2009, at 21:06, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Whether any of these attack vectors are worrisome is another matter.
I tend not
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andrestpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
In my working version of the spec, I now have:
On public servers where the same JID is reused for multiple
anonymous sessions, the server MAY ignore the resource
identifier provided by the client (if any) and
On 13-Aug-2009, at 20:45, Andy Skelton wrote:
After a client authenticates using the SASL ANONYMOUS mechanism, it
MUST bind a resource; the server SHOULD ignore the resource identifier
provided by the client (if any) and instead assign a resource
identifier that it generates on behalf of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/13/09 6:53 PM, Brian Cully wrote:
On 13-Aug-2009, at 20:45, Andy Skelton wrote:
After a client authenticates using the SASL ANONYMOUS mechanism, it
MUST bind a resource; the server SHOULD ignore the resource identifier
provided by the client
On 13-Aug-2009, at 20:54, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 8/13/09 6:53 PM, Brian Cully wrote:
On 13-Aug-2009, at 20:45, Andy Skelton wrote:
After a client authenticates using the SASL ANONYMOUS mechanism, it
MUST bind a resource; the server SHOULD ignore the resource
identifier
provided by the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/13/09 6:45 PM, Andy Skelton wrote:
XEP-0175 1.2rc1, which states:
After a client authenticates using the SASL ANONYMOUS mechanism, it
MUST bind a resource; the server SHOULD ignore the resource identifier
provided by the client (if any)
On 13-Aug-2009, at 21:06, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 8/13/09 6:45 PM, Andy Skelton wrote:
XEP-0175 1.2rc1, which states:
After a client authenticates using the SASL ANONYMOUS mechanism, it
MUST bind a resource; the server SHOULD ignore the resource
identifier
provided by the client (if
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Brian Cullybcu...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13-Aug-2009, at 21:06, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Whether any of these attack vectors are worrisome is another matter.
I tend not to think so. In the case where a bare JID is reused (e.g.,
anonym...@example.com) then
Hi,
Indeed this draft provides more detailed information. It's great :)
I think it would be useful to make a similar draft for PLAIN method, the
core xmpp RFC only explaining the digest-md5 method.
Thanks for this work,
regards,
Eloi
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/6/09 11:40 AM, Eloi Bail wrote:
Indeed this draft provides more detailed information. It's great :)
Super!
I think it would be useful to make a similar draft for PLAIN method, the
core xmpp RFC only explaining the digest-md5 method.
The
Eloi Bail wrote:
Hi,
Indeed this draft provides more detailed information. It's great :)
I like the new text on ANONYMOUS as well.
I think it would be useful to make a similar draft for PLAIN method,
the core xmpp RFC only explaining the digest-md5 method.
I think we need to be careful
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/6/09 11:50 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Eloi Bail wrote:
Hi,
Indeed this draft provides more detailed information. It's great :)
I like the new text on ANONYMOUS as well.
Good.
I think it would be useful to make a similar draft for
Peter Saint-Andre schrieb:
As discussed recently on the list, I've updated XEP-0175 (Best Practices
for Use of SASL ANONYMOUS) to provide more detailed recommendations
regarding usage restrictions for anonymous users.
http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0175-1.2.html
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/6/09 12:09 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre schrieb:
As discussed recently on the list, I've updated XEP-0175 (Best Practices
for Use of SASL ANONYMOUS) to provide more detailed recommendations
regarding usage restrictions for
Peter Saint-Andre schrieb:
On 7/6/09 12:09 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre schrieb:
As discussed recently on the list, I've updated XEP-0175 (Best Practices
for Use of SASL ANONYMOUS) to provide more detailed recommendations
regarding usage restrictions for anonymous users.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/6/09 12:40 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre schrieb:
On 7/6/09 12:09 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre schrieb:
As discussed recently on the list, I've updated XEP-0175 (Best
Practices
for Use of SASL ANONYMOUS) to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/2/09 9:28 PM, Matthew Wild wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andrestpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/30/09 8:37 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue Jun 30 15:33:35 2009, Matthew Wild
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andrestpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/30/09 8:37 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue Jun 30 15:33:35 2009, Matthew Wild wrote:
It does. Anonymous users get given a unique (~random) JID, with an
empty roster.
Carlo v. Loesch wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre typeth:
| vCard is not very extensible on this point -- we can include a JabberID
| via our hack of vcard-xml and I suppose that's OK. Perhaps we can even
| include multiple JabberIDs. :)
What about a list of URIs, so you can put all xmpp:jids,
Pedro Melo wrote:
Hi,
On Mar 18, 2008, at 4:37 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Pedro Melo wrote:
Hi,
during the latest DevCon, one of the issues about deployment was contact
addresses. The current XEP for that is 0157.
I think that 157 breaks the current disco#info usage pattern. We use
Peter Saint-Andre typeth:
| vCard is not very extensible on this point -- we can include a JabberID
| via our hack of vcard-xml and I suppose that's OK. Perhaps we can even
| include multiple JabberIDs. :)
What about a list of URIs, so you can put all xmpp:jids, OpenID,
and ahum URIs of other
Hi,
On Mar 18, 2008, at 4:37 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Pedro Melo wrote:
Hi,
during the latest DevCon, one of the issues about deployment was
contact
addresses. The current XEP for that is 0157.
I think that 157 breaks the current disco#info usage pattern. We use
disco#info to discover
Sorry for the slow reply...
Pedro Melo wrote:
Hi,
during the latest DevCon, one of the issues about deployment was contact
addresses. The current XEP for that is 0157.
I think that 157 breaks the current disco#info usage pattern. We use
disco#info to discover which protocols an entity
On Feb 26, 2008, at 3:05 PM, Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
Pedro Melo pisze:
during the latest DevCon, one of the issues about deployment was
contact addresses. The current XEP for that is 0157.
I think that 157 breaks the current disco#info usage pattern. We
use disco#info to discover which
Pedro Melo pisze:
On Feb 26, 2008, at 3:05 PM, Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
Pedro Melo pisze:
during the latest DevCon, one of the issues about deployment was
contact addresses. The current XEP for that is 0157.
I think that 157 breaks the current disco#info usage pattern.
Now, if you go with
Hi,
On Feb 26, 2008, at 3:15 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
What about section 6.3 of the new version of XEP-115?
stream:features
c xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/caps'
hash='sha-1'
node='http://jabberd.org'
ver='ItBTI0XLDFvVxZ72NQElAzKS9sU='
/stream:features
Then you don't even
Hi,
On Feb 27, 2008, at 3:47 PM, Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
Pedro Melo pisze:
On Feb 26, 2008, at 3:05 PM, Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
Pedro Melo pisze:
during the latest DevCon, one of the issues about deployment was
contact addresses. The current XEP for that is 0157.
I think that 157
Dnia 2008-02-26, Wt o godzinie 16:05 +0100, Maciek Niedzielski pisze:
If I remember well, disco + data forms were choosen to make this very
easy to implement (using basic XEPs), because this information was
considered very important.
This is _the_ point.
Pedro, have you read the
Pedro Melo pisze:
during the latest DevCon, one of the issues about deployment was contact
addresses. The current XEP for that is 0157.
I think that 157 breaks the current disco#info usage pattern. We use
disco#info to discover which protocols an entity supports, not the get
the information
Pedro Melo pisze:
I think that 157 breaks the current disco#info usage pattern. We use
disco#info to discover which protocols an entity supports, not the get
the information directly (exception for basic identity ). So
receiving the entire contact information in the disco#info reply seems
What about section 6.3 of the new version of XEP-115?
stream:features
c xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/caps'
hash='sha-1'
node='http://jabberd.org'
ver='ItBTI0XLDFvVxZ72NQElAzKS9sU='
/stream:features
Then you don't even have to do the disco, except the first time.
On Feb 26,
40 matches
Mail list logo
