yup, that was my confusion. The reason why i think TXT records should be authoritative (if they exist), is that it's a nice way for a server admin to say: 'don't try tcp, it won't work'. It would save the client the SRV lookup (two if the legacy jabber service is checked), plus the 'default port' connection attempt.
The bonus/problem with this is that the DNS admin MUST add the tcp record, otherwise tcp will not be used. (This is not really a bad-thing(tm)) On 11/18/05, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > Norman Rasmussen wrote: > >> 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 > > > > Oh, I see what you mean. All that the TXT record says is: "Among the > > connection methods I support is _xmpp-client-tcp, but if you want to > > know the port number then use the usual SRV lookup mechanism". However, > > the TXT records provide a complete list of the supported connection > > methods. Is that confusing? I suppose it is possible for the TXT records > > and SRV records to get out of sync in this case as well (though it's > > just as possible for the TXT record to say that a WAP connection method > > is supported and for the WAP admin to shut that off, so I don't know > > that the two cases are all that different). > > Hmm, now that I think about it some more the _xmpp-client-tcp > information probably doesn't belong in a TXT record at all, but I'll > talk with my co-author about that before removing it. > > /psa > > > -- - Norman Rasmussen - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Home page: http://norman.rasmussen.co.za/
