Joe Hildebrand wrote: > > On Mar 22, 2008, at 8:43 AM, Alexander Gnauck wrote: >> Peter Saint-Andre schrieb: >>> 1. Let's say you want to connect to a MUC service. Does it make sense to >>> have an SRV record for that? Such as: >>> _xmpp-groupchat._tcp.conference.jabber.org 5269 athena.jabber.org >>> 2. Let's say you want to connect to a pubsub service that pumps out >>> notifications. How about this? >>> _xmpp-notification._tcp.pubsub.jabber.org 5269 athena.jabber.org >> >> I think that we should recommend srv records also for services which >> run on subdomains. Most server admins setup srv records only for the >> main server. But I don't think it makes much sense to come up with new >> prefixes, because groupchat and muc are just services which require >> s2s, so I would use _xmpp-server for them.
Yes, I think you're right. If you know your account is at foo.com and you want to join a chatroom at bar.com then you know that a server-to-server connection will be required. > +1. You can always disco#info to the address to find out what it is. Right. Step 1 if you're a client is to get on the network. Step 2 is to find out about other entities on the network. > If you really had to do this, it should probably be some sort of NAPTR > query, anyhow, so that you could look up > _xmpp-notification._tcp.jabber.org and have it give you back > xmpp:pubsub.jabber.com, which you could then SRV. This would be useful > in the edge case where I'll allow you to talk to my pubsub, but not to > my IM domain, so that I can't disco#items your IM domain to find the > other related services. Hmm, that does seem like an edge case. Do any existing servers behave that way? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
