On 06/14/2008 3:50 AM, Dirk Meyer wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 06/13/2008 3:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> >>> Here is an early version of the Jingle-streams spec: >>> >>> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-streams.html >>> >>> Next I'll copy the e2e-streams stuff from XEP-0174 into a new spec. >> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/e2e-streams.html > > | In accordance with rfc3921bis [5], the initial stream header SHOULD > | include the 'to' and 'from' attributes. In the case of XEP-0174, these > | SHOULD be the [EMAIL PROTECTED] advertised in the PTR record. In > | the case of Jingle XML Streams, these SHOULD be the bare JIDs > | (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <domain.tld>) of the entities as > | communicated via XMPP. > > I would prefer the full JID in the stream header. In my use case two > different bots of the same user talk to each other. In that case it > would be very helpful to use the full JID. The same is true for > XEP-0174. If I have different set-top boxes in my home network with > the same software I need a way to keep them apart.
There are two ways to handle this: 1. Full JID case: allow multiple simultaneous streams between entities, one for each communication session. 2. Bare JID case: use one stream between entities and bind multiple resources to the stream if necessary (see rfc3920bis). Right now, XEP-0174 uses bare JIDs for the 'to' and 'from' addresses on the stream headers, so it seems that it might follow #2, but AFAIK no clients implement binding of multiple resources. I don't know if any clients currently rely on the 'to' and 'from' in XEP-0174, so I think it would be safe to modify XEP-0174 to use full JIDs, not bare JIDs (or use either). Given that an e2e stream is between two endpoints, using full JIDs seems like it might be more appropriate. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
