Hi,
On Dec 5, 2007, at 8:53 AM, Massimiliano Mirra wrote:
Except that how do you know someone is not trying to poison your
roster?
We talk about this in both RFC 3921 and rfc3921bis. For example you
can
Well, the remote transport gw.remote.dom will send roster pushes to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] So my server gets those.
It would then check my roster to see if I have an item for
gw.remote.dom. If yes, then it would rewrite the roster push from as
local.dom.
I'm doing something like:
[usual roster get snipped]
the next part is not needed. See below.
<iq from='server' to='transport' type='get' id='deleg01'>
<query xmlns='roster-delegation'>
<owner jid='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'/>
</query>
</iq>
...transport logs to legacy service...
The transport will log on to the legacy service when he receives a
<presence> stanza. It should be like that to pass along <status> and
<show> information.
<iq from='transport' to='server' type='result' id='deleg01'>
<query xmlns='roster-delegation'>
<owner jid='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'/>
<query xmlns='jabber:iq:roster'>
<item jid='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'/>
<item jid='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'/>
</query>
</query>
</iq>
This would become a IQ set, and the rest below would proceed as before.
[std roster pushes snipped].
Wrapping the roster from the transport rather than overloading its
usual function looked attractive, but maybe there are gotchas with one
<query> inside another (even if namespaced).
ENOCRYSTALBALL, can't see reasons for/against either one.
Best regards,
--
HIId: Pedro Melo
SMTP: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
