Should we allow subscriptions to a full JID instead of a bare JID? For example:
<presence from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
to='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource'
type='subscribe'/>
I know people have said there are legitimate scenarios when you might
want to do that, but I've never found them compelling.
However, if we say that you MUST NOT subscribe to a full JID, then that
rule needs to be enforced somewhere. Here are the options:
1. Enforced by user's server. (See below.)
2. Enforced by contact's server.
In this case, the contact's server will return a presence error:
<presence from='[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource'
to='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
type='error'>
<error type='modify'>
<bad-request xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'/>
</error>
</presence>
(Or perhaps <jid-malformed/>?)
Because the error is sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bare JID), would it be
handled by the user's server? I think so. Which means that...
Both (1) and (2) imply that the user's server needs to inform the client
that a problem occurred with the subscription request. But how? Would it
return a presence error to the user's client? Presence errors are rare
(perhaps even nonexistent) right now -- instead we use unsubscribe and
unsubscribed in rfc3921bis. So I don't know how existing clients will
handle presence errors.
I don't have a strong preference between enforcing this at the user's
server or the contact's server, although I lean toward user's server
(because the user's server is the one that would need to deal with all
the complexities of full-JID subscriptions -- but note that this has an
impact on the contact's server as well if the user's server starts to
send presence probes to full JIDs there, so I see no harm in enforcing
this in both places).
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
