XSF Discussion - 2018-10-26

the Server Contact info of a3.pm contains an item called `arg-addresses`, and it's running ejabberd 18.06. Is there a typo in the ejabberd code or will it allow arbitrary $foo-addresses fields? cc Holger

Ge0rG: It allows arbitrary fields.

Holger: I see, thanks

Is that legal?

> This information MUST be scoped using a FORM_TYPE of "http://jabber.org/network/serverinfo" (as already specified in XEP-0128) and data form fields registered for this purpose as defined in the XMPP Registrar Considerations section of this document. So probably not.

Whenever something is critical for interop we use SHOULD, but here we use a MUST, of course :-)

Does that preclude other fields? I don't think it does.

dwd, something smelly is going on in the s2s connection between you and ignite

Oh? I'll take a look.

on this end, the session is gone, but appears to be used anyway by the s2s tester

dwd: What's the effect of that MUST clause at all then, with regard to the form fields?

Over enthusiastic use of RFC 2119?

I think it's intending to say that the information is carried in registered form fields. So you MUST NOT invent new form fields to carry the same information, by inference. But it's not saying you can't extend it with additional form fields, as far as I can tell, and I don't see what problem it would be trying to prevent by such a requirement.

dwd, Holger: for the record other field names are allowed, but they must follow Clark notation

dwd: how is a client supposed to know what's a contact address and what's random junk in the form?

Ge0rG, Doesn't XEP-0128 handle that?

dwd: so for the sake of displaying contact addresses, only the fields defined in 0157 are such, and everything else is unrelated?

Ge0rG, I mean, any fields not understood could be dropped or presented to the user, but the actual contact fields are properly identifiable by machine.

my lazy implementation actually matches all fields ending in `-addresses`, so it caught that misconfiguration.

because I thought 0157 might be amended with more fields later on, and I'd be too lazy to change the static list of legal field names.

Ge0rG, so I’m not sure what your problem is

the arg-address is probably a contact address, but you don’t know the purpose

Ge0rG, SO you're not following the spec and it's not working?

My question (more than a problem) was whether ejabberd has a bug, a bad configuration interface for 0157, or if I was missing something from the spec. It turned out to be a bad configuration interface.

Not sure it was just one of those. :-)

I just sent an email to members@, I have 5 FINAL CCC vouchers for those interested, please email me at pep@bouah.net.