On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 09:57:41AM +0530, Vinod Panicker wrote: > On 3/29/06, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 03:20:15PM +0530, Vinod Panicker wrote: > > > > > > Anyways, the point to be clarified that remains is - > > > > > > In case of a connected resource, a new resource with the same resource > > > identifier is to be returned a <conflict/>, whereas in the case of an > > > active resource, a new resource with the same resource identifer is > > > recommended to be allowed to login, returning a <conflict/> to the old > > > resource. > > > > Where did you get this? I think you're reading too much into the spec. > > >From RFC 3920, Section 7 > > Client binds a resource: > > <iq type='set' id='bind_2'> > <bind xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'> > <resource>someresource</resource> > </bind> > </iq> > > <snip/> > > When a client supplies a resource identifier, the following stanza > error conditions are possible (see Stanza Errors (Section 9.3)): > > <snip/> > > o The provided resource identifier is already in use but the server > does not allow binding of multiple connected resources with the > same identifier.
I can't remember why we even thought about allowing a client to bind multiple resources with the same identifier, since it would play havoc with delivery logic. Sounds to me like a clean-up item for rfc3920bis. Peter
