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

Jacek Konieczny jajcus at jajcus.net
Wed Jul 26 07:55:37 UTC 2006


Hello,

Just some of my thoughts about the ideas:

On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 12:49:04PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 2. SRV
> 
> - SRV preferred but not widespread so need a fallback
> - do TXT (JEP-0156) to get domain to do SRV or other against
> 
> For example:
> 
> 1. SRV "example.com" -> NAME
> 2. TXT "example.com" -> example.net
> 3. SRV "example.net" -> ?
> 4. A "example.net"
> 5. A "example.com"

I don't like the idea of further encouraging not-using SRV records. At
least for s2s that should IMHO be required. TXT seems just like an ugly
hack here.

Did all the software tested during the event properly handled SRV
records? 

> 3. see-other-host
> 
> clarify what happens with ports in see-other-host
> - use whatever port you were using and whatever method
> - if fail, try SRV etc. against that hostname

This are quite different actions, IMHO allowing them both may cause a
lot of confusion. And big delays -- connection attempt, then SRV record
resolution attempt, etc. If only one action would be valid (e.g. SRV
lookup or direct connection), then it will work or not rather than
working better, worse or not at all.

> 8. Stream features
> 
> all stream features must have the <required/> child so know when it's OK
> to start sending stanzas

What namespace? Each stream feature element is qualified by its own
namespace, we should not force any element into a foreign namespaces.
IMHO that should be still feature-dependant. It may be added to any
stream features defined by the RFC, but not to any other, yet unknown
features.

> 11. Privacy lists
> 
> ick, too complex, few have implemented, no one is using

:-(


Greets,
        Jacek



More information about the Standards mailing list