On Jan 30, 2:27 pm, Magnus Henoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "stpeter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That's odd, there is no <bad-auth/> error in XMPP's use of SASL: > > A bug in ejabberd, it seems. I just reported > it:http://www.jabber.ru/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=315
Great. > However, ejabberd sometimes returns <bad-protocol/>, when the client > sends invalid SASL data. That's also not in the RFC. What should be > used instead? The only defined errors are here: http://www.xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc3920.html#sasl-errors So: <aborted/> <incorrect-encoding/> <invalid-authzid/> <invalid-mechanism/> <mechanism-too-weak/> <not-authorized/> <temporary-auth-failure/> If we need more error conditions, we can define them in the next version of the spec. /psa --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-talk-open" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-talk-open?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
