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

[Norman Rasmussen]

I think my point was, that we /could/ make TXT supersede SRV.

Also the JEP's wording makes it sound like you _shouldn't_ be
including _xmpp-client-tcp in TXT records.

On 11/17/05, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> Norman Rasmussen wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Yes. SRV records are used to define the stuff in RFC 3920. TXT records
> would be used to define other connection methods, such as (1) support
> for JEP-0124 and the URL at which to access the HTTP-connection service
> or (2) support for connections via WAP and the URL to use.
>
> > 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)
>
> The standard XMPP port numbers are to be included in SRV records. It's
> not good to define the same information in two places (what if the
> fumble-fingered DNS admin defines _xmpp-client-tcp as 5222 in SRV but as
> 6222 in TXT?) and we already have a place to define ports for
> _xmpp-client-tcp and _xmpp-server-tcp.
>
> So the rule is:
>
> 1. Use SRV records for the _xmpp-client-tcp and _xmpp-server-tcp
> connection methods
>
> 2. Use TXT for all other connection methods
>
> BTW, this is necessary (especially for HTTP access methods) because you
> can't include a URL in SRV.
>
> Peter
>
>
>


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