[jdev] Re: Google DNS SRV records

[Rory]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 08:28:43PM +0200, Remko Troncon wrote:
> 
> On 27 Aug 2005, at 19:58, Rory wrote:
> 
> >You could run proxies inside firewalls that might be knowledgeable  
> >about HTTP tunneling.
> 
> You always look at this from the viewpoint of a network  
> administrator. If you have no control over the network you are in  
> (i.e. you are not an admin), and the only thing you can do is make a  
> tunnel to the outside world, then you need to be able to override the  
> host detected by your protocol. This is why, if you do not allow this  
> in a client, you will never be able to use that client on the network  
> you are working in.
> 

You're right, I do always look at this from a network
administrator viewpoint or at least I try to.

What I'm getting at here is division of labour. I don't
think that an XMPP client should be expected to know how to
use HTTP tunneling to get through a firewall to speak to an
XMPP server listening on a particular IP on the other side.
I don't think it should be the responsibility of every XMPP
client/library to provide this functionality. However, I do
believe there is a case to be made for saying the client
should be able to talk to an XMPP proxy that will do the
tunneling for them.  There is nothing to stop a user from
running a XMPP proxy that knows how to tunnel via HTTP
on their own box on a port above 1024 (and perhaps below
on windows - I don't know).

It's simply the UNIX philosophy - keep tools small, cohesive
and with a capability of using one another.

Rory