Robin Redeker wrote:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 08:17:19PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Robin Redeker wrote:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 09:20:27AM +0200, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
I think the whole XEP should be renamed to something like:
XEP-0106 - JID Mapping for Gateways
This would be better. But it breaks the generic usage of JIDs for both users
and gateways. It will create a lot of trouble.
The XEP seems to already create a lot of trouble. Just remind me to
register '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' when every client unescapes JIDs ;-)
No problem. The spec says:
"The character sequence \20 MUST NOT be the first or last character of
an escaped node identifier."
But of course you can violate the spec if desired. ;-)
I don't violate the RFC here. I violate some optional extension.
You cant specify the characters mentioned in the xep in the node without
escaping them - so trying to do so otherwise is a violation of the rfc.
Ofcourse you can come up with a custom encoding (as we used to have),
but this does not allow any arbitrary client/server combination to
interoperate.
The XEP-0106 has to exclude the JIDs which start or end with '\20' in the
nodepart from the escaping AND unescaping transformations.
This is already present.
At the moment the paragraph says that it MUST NOT be first or last
in the node part, but it doesn't say WHAT to do when this perfectly
fine JID arrives from the line. Should the JID not be unescaped at all?
Should only the parts after and before '\20' be unescaped?
Should the client close the connection?
It depends on who is doing what.
If the recipient is expected to 'parse' the node, then it would return
an error, else it would pass it on (directed packets through server for
example).
Do I miss something in the XEP? (If I do so please ignore the rest of
the mail.)
Please also note the nice, but maybe not so important collision that
here happens when the client just doesn't unescape:
unescape ("\5c20foobar\5c20") => "\20foobar\20"
unescape ("\20foobar\20") => "\20foobar\20"
This is of course not really an important JID, and who cares about a few
optical collisions in clients which confuse the user. And these only happens
once someone else decides to put '\20' at the beginning or end
of his name and why would someone do that?
Hey, we could add security notes to all clients which tell the user:
"Never attach '\20' to the beginning or end of your name, it is unsafe!"
The U.S. Army will love this! (One might think of a case where they actually
name their units by enumerating them with a \ in the end:
Unescaped: Escaped: Unescaped:
"Tank\1" "Tank\5c1" "Tank\1"
"Tank\20" "Tank\20" "Tank\20"
"Tank\22" "Tank\5c22" "Tank\22"
"Tank\5c20" "Tank\20" ... oooops
Ah... never... why would they do that... :-)
These sort of problems are common to any form of encoding - example
urlencoding.
It is obviously expected that the client/gateway would do the right thing.
I propose to rename the XEP to make clear that this escaping/unescaping should
only happen in very rare cases (only at gateways or heavily specialized client
frontends). And that the terms 'escaping' and 'unescaping' are replaced by
'mapping' and 'unmapping', because thats what is happening here.
Not really very specialized clients - even common clients will need it.
Example, if uid's used in the server are mailid's for example.
Then the client will need to escape the node for the bind.
- Mridul
Robin
