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

[Norman Rasmussen]

A comment in JEP-0156 confuses me:

3.1: A domain SHOULD NOT present information in DNS TXT records that
is available via the DNS SRV records defined in RFC 3920.

At first I read that as '_xmppconnect IN TXT "_xmpp-client-tcp'
shouldn't be allowed, because the SRV records advertise the same data,
or am I mis-reading something here?

Can you give an example of data in SRV that should not be included in
TXT? Is the _only_ case port numbers?

Surely it would actually be a _good_ idea to include the port numbers
in the TXT record, bcause you reduce the number of DNS lookups?  (i.e.
if you get a TXT record, don't bother with SRV)

On 11/17/05, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>


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