[JDEV] jabberd patch

[Tijl Houtbeckers]

"Matthew A. Miller" <linuxwolf at outer-planes.no-ip.com> wrote on 26-2-
2003 2:42:45: 
>
>The more I read this thread, the more I agree with both sides...
>
>Is there middle ground to be had?  What if XMPP were defined in such a
>way that if a connection/session attempted to auth as an already online
>one, it was up to the server.  If the server decided it was allowed, it
>sent the appropriate iq-error to the original connection (302?) along
>with the disconnect.  If the server decided it wasn't, it sent a 409 or
>405 iq-error to the new connection along with the diconnect.
>
>Does the above sound reasonable?  If so, I'll make a point of
>approaching the XMPP I-D authors on it.

In the current XMPP spec (draft-ietf-xmpp-core-04)  we can find this:

"
The following codes are defined for stream-level errors: 
302 - Redirect 
400 - Bad XML 
404 - Unknown Host 
410 - Gone 
500 - Internal Server Error 
505 - Version Not Supported 
"

I'd like to see 409 included here as well.

409 is already including amongst the standard error, so it's can be 
used for denying authentication: 

"
409 (Conflict) - Code 409 is returned when a request cannot be 
fulfilled because of an inherent conflict (e.g., because a client 
attempts to authorize a resouce name that is already in use). " 

The description would have to be changed a little too since it's not 
request-specific anymore. 


-- 
Tijl Houtbeckers
Software Engineer @ Splendo
The Netherlands