jdev - 2020-03-17

hi

Kev

ankit

Is a roster item's 'jid' attribute required to be a bare JID? I'd think it is so, but failing to find where it is specified.

defanor: it can't be a full jid, but it may be a domain jid

Ge0rG: Oh, makes sense. But still, is it specified somewhere, or just implied?

defanor: I can't find anything in RFC6121

I thought it was one of the things clarified in the bis RFCs :/

There has been discussion about it previously

You can't sensibly have a subscription to a full JID though, so it doesn't make sense in many ways

MattJ, though it would allow to Auto-GC1.0-Join MUCs

Oh no

GC1 is a myth

rightfully so

MattJ> You can't sensibly have a subscription to a full JID though, but you can have a roster item without subscription, sooo…

Is the relevant text in the parts about subscription handling?

I think it is imporant, when designing xmpp, to think about and specific which types of JIDs are sensible and allowed at every place an xmpp address appears ✏

https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6121.html#sub > the server MUST stamp the outgoing presence stanza with the bare JID <localpart@domainpart> of the sending entity

https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6121.html#sub-request-gen > When a user sends a presence subscription request [...], the value of the 'to' attribute MUST be a bare JID