[Members] [news] Anyone can build a Windows Messenger client???with open standards access via XMPP

Ralph Meijer jabberfoundation at ralphm.ik.nu
Thu Dec 22 14:22:56 UTC 2011

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 09:42:28PM +0900, jehan at zemarmot.net wrote:
> Hi,
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:20:40 +0100, Ralph Meijer
> <jabberfoundation at ralphm.ik.nu> wrote:
> > On 2011-12-21 16:40 , Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >> [..]
> >>> We can probably suggest to MSFT that they get the SRV records right;
> >>> it's one less thing for client developers to need to do.
> >>
> >> I'll pass this along to my contacts there.
> > 
> > There is no problem. See my other message earlier today.
> I say there is still a problem. Here, with the wildcard rule, it looked
> like there was a SRV records to live.com though there is not. Nothing
> should have been returned to this SRV query.

Well, I don't think they included that wildcard rule with SRV in mind.
This is just standard DNS behavior, and within spec. You always get
CNAMEs back, even if you asked for another record type.

> Also, just as a side note (that won't change the fact, just sharing my
> astonishment), what a strange idea to use messenger.live.com! That is
> nearly as though they don't understand "modern technologies", and did
> not understand that is exactly the point of SRV records, in order not to
> have to create specific domains/subdomains just for IM.

Agreed. I assume this is because of design decisions in other parts of
the system and its native protocol. E.g. one might argue that HTTP could have
benefit from SRV, and STARTTLS, but I don't see that happening any time
soon, despite several drafts, an RFC and tickets against various
browsers. We were fortunate to have put these in rather early on.


More information about the Members mailing list