On 2/3/21 3:52 PM, Sonny Piers wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021, at 14:20, Florian Schmaus wrote:On 2/3/21 1:47 PM, Sonny Piers wrote> > The equivalent for TCP (srv records) is in core so why not its > equivalent for web ?I don't see xmpp-*. SRV RRs in 'Core'. Only xmpps-*. SRV RRs are in 'Advanced', and that is probably because they are an extra XEP. And since it appears you could be RFC-6120 compliant without implementing SRV RRs lookup, I would similarly argue as above: The compliance suite should explicitly state that for RFC-6120 style connections, proper SRV RRs handling is REQUIRED. This would mean that "lazy" clients, as Daniel describes then, could not declare conformity with the compliance suites.xmpp-* srvs are in RFC 6120https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#tcp-resolution-prefer <https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#tcp-resolution-prefer>
Right, they are *described* in RFC 6120. But it does not appear that they are mandatory to implement, at least I am unable to find some normative wording on this. Something like "clients SHOULD perform ยง 3.2.1 when connecting". Hence an implementation could claim RFC 6120 compliance without implementing SRV RRs lookups.
The situation is similar with RFC 7395: There appears to be no normative wording that makes XEP-0156 mandatory. It is just described there.
Hence, I wonder if the compliance suites should not explicitly require support for SRV RRs, or XEP-0156 in case of WebSocket.
- Florian
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
