not-authorized error during dialback authentication with gmail.com

[Pedro Melo]

Hi

On Feb 8, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Christian Huldt wrote:

> I would guess that the servers not working with the code require
> something special there, i.e. none existing <stream:features> does not
> say anything, while empty <stream:features> say there is absolutely
> nothing there...
>
> Like the zlib example at
> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0138.html#usecase
>
> compared to the statement that zlib compression is required at
> http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0138.html#mandatory
>
> (OK I'm not sure what I am talking about as I'm not that well versed  
> in
> XMPP)

The problem here is a bit different.

The correct initial <stream:stream> for the old Jabber protocol is  
just this:

<stream:stream
    xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
    xmlns='jabber:server'
    xmlns:db='jabber:server:dialback'>

Notice that it lacks version='1.0'.

If you send this, GTalk will not send you <features>, and you can  
follow with the flow described in 3920, section 8.

But during the 3920bis process, the dialback section was removed and  
published as XEP-0220. If you look at that spec, you will see that it  
now uses a complete XMPP <stream:stream> with the proper version='1.0'.

http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0220.html

In that case the receiving server will send back a <features> with the  
dialback namespace.

The proper response is not to your own features, but to proceed to the  
dialback process.

So the code should be disabled.

Best regards,

> Brad Fitzpatrick skrev:
>> Let's complete this table, then we can change the code:
>>
>> http://sites.google.com/site/djabberd/dialback-auth-problems
>>
>> Email me (privately if you'd like) your Google account email address
>> (which might be a non-gmail.com <http://non-gmail.com> address) and
>> I'll give you edit access to that site.
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Piers Harding <piers at ompka.net
>> <mailto:piers at ompka.net>> wrote:
>>
>>   Do you know what the google server is?  Is it OpenFire (I don't  
>> know -
>>   probably not as it is unlikely to cope with what they do - or  
>> maybe it
>>   does?).
>>
>