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

[Norman Rasmussen]

I don't mind if it's 'SHOULD or MUST' NOT,  but I think that
'_xmppconnect IN TXT "_xmpp-client-tcp"' should be removed from the
list of Example 1. TXT Resource Records, and perhaps listed directly
with Business Rule 3.1

At the moment it looks like it's "allowed" because it's in the example
with other allowed records.  So it needs something to let people know
that even though it's in the list they should be creating them.

On 11/17/05, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> Norman Rasmussen wrote:
> > I think my point was, that we /could/ make TXT supersede SRV.
>
> We could, but we won't because (1) that would introduce unnecessary
> protocol churn and (2) we're good netizens (the IETF prefers that you
> use SRV instead of TXT -- these TXT records are rather a hack).
>
> > Also the JEP's wording makes it sound like you _shouldn't_ be
> > including _xmpp-client-tcp in TXT records.
>
> Would it be better to say MUST NOT? I have no problem with that.
>
> Peter
>
> > 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/