On 26 June 2015 at 13:38, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/26/15 5:26 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: >> >> On 26 June 2015 at 00:51, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Thus we need a way for a client to discover where it can authenticate as >>> an >>> ad-hoc or guest user. We don't want to use a DNS SRV Service name of >>> "xmpp-client" because that will point clients to the service endpoint for >>> registered users. What we came up with was to use a new DNS SRV Service >>> name >>> of "xmpp-guest", which would point to the service endpoint for guest >>> access. >>> >>> Has anyone else deployed this kind of pattern? If so, how did you solve >>> the >>> problem of service endpoint discovery? Would you find it helpful to have >>> a >>> DNS SRV Service name for this kind of access? >> >> >> Would a TXT record not be more appropriate? > > > Not according to IETF folks. There's a real animus against TXT records for > SRV-ish things (and this seems like one of them). > >> Containing the XMPP host >> of a suitable place to authenticate anonymously? A SRV will tell you >> where to connect to, but not which XMPP host to use. > > > Sure, you need to do the SRV two-step.
I'm not sure I understand completely, then. Are you proposing that the target of the SRV record is the XMPP host (and thus ignore the port?)? >> TXT gives you >> both (because you can proceed with the usual SRV lookups for the guest >> host, once you know it). >> >> If you're using the same XMPP host for non-guest and guest, I don't >> see the need for an extra DNS record. I don't see a use-case for for >> non-guest and guest on the same XMPP host but different network hosts > > > To my mind, it's about separation of concerns - I'd rather not mix my > anonymous users with my registered users. That aspect I understand and agree with completely. >> (just use clustering(TM)). > > Given that we're using Prosody, I suppose I'll take up *that* topic in the > Prosody chatroom. ;-) Any time :) Regards, Matthew
