And, to amplify, ... On 3/17/11 5:24 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Thu Mar 17 23:12:50 2011, A.Wagner wrote: >> i am getting the challenge and build the response: >> <response >> xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'>longbase64encodedstring</response> >> >> >> > You almost never want to write your own DIGEST-MD5 code. (Aside from the > fact that SCRAM is easier and better, lots of people have written > DIGEST-MD5 code, and it'll probably "just work").
There's a reason why the IETF is deprecating DIGEST-MD5 in favor of SCRAM, and why SCRAM will be the mandatory-to-implement in the new XMPP specs. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-kitten-digest-to-historic-02 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5802 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-22#section-13.8 >> but then the server always responds with (even when response stanza is >> empty): >> <failure >> xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'><invalid-authzid/></failure> >> >> > I'm guessing this is jabber.org you're testing against. I'm not sure > that's a great idea, but in any case that's a generic error with that > implementation, so it could very easily be almost any error, in fact. Please do test against multiple implementations -- *especially* when testing DIGEST-MD5. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ JDev mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev Unsubscribe: jdev-unsubscr...@jabber.org _______________________________________________
