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 <[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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
