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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Home page: http://norman.rasmussen.co.za/
