[Standards-JIG] [Fwd: [interop] day 1 summary]

[Albert Holm]

Thursday 27 July 2006 22:53 skrev Gary Burd:
> On 7/27/06, Albert Holm <albert+sjig at cdr.se> wrote:
> > I would believe that most DNS hosts that believe SRV is
> > difficult/hard/not supported also believe that everything else except MX,
> > A, CNAME and maybe even NS is equally difficult/hard/not supported and
> > thus does not support TXT.
>
> We found that many hosts support TXT records. We suspect that TXT
> support is driven by SPF.

I am still not convinced it is a good way and currently SRV is not required 
which might seem discouraging to future implementors (even though current 
software seems to handle it).

It feels a bit like if SMTP would use formulations like SHOULD when it comes 
to using the MX record as the first way to resolve the domain name.

Ensuring that no fallback mechanism is used if SRV is found is something that 
I believe the XMPP RFC should define. SMTP does in section 5 of 2821 for 
example. 

I also think that SRV MUST be the first way to resolve the domain for XMPP 
just like MX is the first way to resolve the mail host for a domain. Right 
now it is only SHOULD/recommendation.