Ian Paterson wrote:
useWhile 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 tothe authority component address as an last-resort solution in such acase? 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
