XSF Discussion - 2018-10-26


  1. Ge0rG

    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

  2. Holger

    Ge0rG: It allows arbitrary fields.

  3. Ge0rG

    Holger: I see, thanks

  4. Zash

    Is that legal?

  5. Holger

    > 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.

  6. Holger

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

  7. dwd

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

  8. Guus

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

  9. dwd

    Oh? I'll take a look.

  10. Guus

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

  11. Holger

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

  12. dwd

    Over enthusiastic use of RFC 2119?

  13. dwd

    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.

  14. MattJ

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

  15. Ge0rG

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

  16. dwd

    Ge0rG, Doesn't XEP-0128 handle that?

  17. Ge0rG

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

  18. dwd

    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.

  19. Ge0rG

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

  20. Ge0rG

    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.

  21. jonas’

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

  22. jonas’

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

  23. dwd

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

  24. Ge0rG

    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.

  25. dwd

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

  26. pep.

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