Fabio Forno wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Also, I think that the rule from rfc3920 is still in force: >> >> *** >> >> If the JID contained in the 'to' attribute is of the form >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource> and there is a connected resource that exactly >> matches the full JID, the server SHOULD deliver the stanza to that >> connected resource. >> >> *** >> > > Yep, but I see now that there is another possibile conflict between > rfc3920 and 3921: > > In the following rule we say: "# If the JID contains a resource > identifier and there exists no connected resource that matches the > full JID, the recipient's server SHOULD return a > <service-unavailable/> stanza error to the sender. " > > and in 3921, accordingly to 11.1, rule 3: > > "Else if the JID is of the form <[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource> and no > available resource matches the full JID, the recipient's server (a) > SHOULD silently ignore the stanza (i.e., neither deliver it nor return > an error) if it is a presence stanza, (b) MUST return a > <service-unavailable/> stanza error to the sender if it is an IQ > stanza, and (c) SHOULD treat the stanza as if it were addressed to > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> if it is a message stanza. "
I don't see a conflict. The rfc3921 rules build on the rfc3920 rules (which are vague enough that the rfc3921rules don't conflict). Or at least that was the idea. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
