Richard, > Interesting solution but not exactly standard, and will only > work between servers that are running Jive Messenger,
True. However, the nice thing about the logic is that normal DNS is tried first. We also recommend that users setup DNS for max compatibility. Even so, the extra logic means that if normal DNS isn't or can't be setup, the service will still work if the other server is JM. So far, we don't see a reason that this couldn't be added as an implementation recommendation attached to the RFC's. > according to the specs for s2s the fact that the MUC service > is a subdomain of another server is irrelivant, its not the > root domain that the other servers are trying to talk to its > the conference service itself directly, I think this is simply something terribly broken about most XMPP implementations. Users don't think of MUC as "another server" and the reality is that many people in large organizations don't have the ability to manage DNS or getting DNS changes is a huge burden that could lead them to another "SIMPLEr" (ha ha) IM system. If everybody implemented the same logic that we do in Jive Messenger, it seems like it would mostly solve the problem. Since we can't enforce that, we still recommend DNS entries and will continue to do careful testing to make sure that we work with all the other s2s implementations (this latest bug which started the discussion proves that we likely still have more work to do). Regards, -Matt
