[jdev] Re: Two questions regarding JEP-0124 HTTP Binding

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Ian Paterson wrote:
>> While handling the route attribute, should the authority
>> component of the IRI be used or ignored?
>>
>> What's the suggested result when the IRI holds no node identifier? 
>> Should the route attribute be silently ignored, or should an error 
>> (improper-addressing seems suitable) be thrown? Is it safe to try to
> use 
>> the authority component address as an last-resort solution in such a
> case?
> 
> The JEP states that the XMPP IRI indicates the "protocol, host, and
> port". Although the current version of the JEP does not currently
> explicitly exclude other IRI components, perhaps it should. The XMPP IRI
> SHOULD be of the form:
> "xmpp:" ihost [ ":" port ]
> 
> Can anyone think of a use case that would be prevented if we formalise
> this in the JEP? If not then I would say that 'route' attribute values
> with a different form SHOULD be silently ignored.

I see no need for including anything but xmpp:ihost[:port] because the 
whole point here is specifying which server the proxy will talk with.

Now that we have JEP-0156, do we need the :port in IRIs for this use 
case? That is, can't the proxy figure out which port to use via DNS TXT 
records? Does the client really need to tell the proxy which port to use 
or is that task better left up to the proxy? Just asking.

> Also the JEP states that "The XMPP IRI specifcation does not currently
> allow a port in an XMPP IRI; the authors will pursue the matter within
> the Internet Standards Process." I'd like to fix both these points at
> the same time. Peter, is there any news about the possibility of
> including ports in an upcoming draft-saintandre-xmpp-iri-03.txt? (IIRC
> this was discussed on the Standards-JIG list a few months ago.)

I wonder if we really need to specify the destination server as an IRI. 
What do we gain from using URI/IRI syntax? Why not just specify 
host:port since the protocol (xmpp) will always be the same? This is for 
use strictly within the context of XMPP so the usual arguments about the 
need for a URI/IRI don't apply (identifying XMPP entities from outside 
of XMPP networks). It seems simpler to just specify host:port in the 
'route' attribute and be done with it. Also, that way I don't need to 
add :port to the XMPP URI draft, which still concerns me a bit because 
ports are not part of the base XMPP address spec.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20051117/cf763174/attachment-0002.bin>