JID terminology (was: Re: [jdev] PyMSNt 0.11 release)

[Norman Rasmussen]

On 2/17/06, Justin Karneges <justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com> wrote:
> On Friday 17 February 2006 11:21, Norman Rasmussen wrote:
> > AFAIK the reason why things were changed this way, is because the
> > gajim team made an assumption that you can't do an FT with a bare jid
> > (and therefore disabled the FT menu items), because you have to send
> > iq packets to do the FT, and iq packets must always be addressed to
> > the full jid.  (of course, the barejid=fulljid with transports).
>
> I was just having a discussion with Peter and it seems that we may be getting
> our terminology wrong.  With a transport, you cannot say "barejid=fulljid",
> because the transports (at least the ones you are referring to in that
> statement) don't have full JIDs at all.  What you mean to say is
> "barejid=jid".  "Full JID" is more of a boolean.
>
> JID: stpeter at jabber.org/Home
> Bare JID: stpeter at jabber.org
> Full JID: true
>
> JID: stpeter at jabber.org
> Bare JID: stpeter at jabber.org
> Full JID: false
>
> JID: jabber.org
> Bare JID: jabber.org (?)
> Full JID: false
>
> If you simply want a term for "untruncated JID", your answer is "JID".

RFC 3920 and 3921 will disagree with you.  There are multiple
instances in the specs where something like this is written:

the resource identifier portion of the "full JID" (<node at domain/resource>)
address for use over that stream is a "full JID" of the form
<node at domain/resource>.
stanza whose value is the bare JID (<node at domain>) or the full JID
(<node at domain/resource>)
deliver the user's presence stanza to the full JIDs
(<contact at example.org/resource>)

etc,

--
- Norman Rasmussen
 - Email: norman at rasmussen.co.za
 - Home page: http://norman.rasmussen.co.za/