[Standards] Jingle: UDP relays
scottlu at google.com
Tue Aug 14 23:40:30 UTC 2007
On Aug 14, 2007 4:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > Unnikrishnan V wrote:
> >> I am not sure of any other services than used for voip ( stun,
> >> stun-relay etc ).
> > Not yet. ;-)
> >> As in my eyes XEP-215 is doing only _stun._udp srv query ( may be its
> >> eye problem ).
> >> Now for adding turn we have to modify XEp-215.What if somebody want
> >> to use rsip instead of stun and stun-relay ? for the same reasons we
> >> started XEP-215 we have to make another XEP or upgrade. Even for
> >> _stun.tcp , _stun.tls queries, i am sure XEP 215 will be modified.
> > You make a good point.
> >> The best approach, in my opinion is to have a generic network service
> >> record framework and XMPP registrar to keep addition of services
> >> entries. The same framework can be used for network server offered
> >> service or XMPP service (like muc ).
> > Yes I think that is worth considering. I'll give it some more thought
> > over the new few days...
> Well, I thought about it some more.
> Please note something in XEP-0215:
> "This method should be used only as a fallback when DNS SRV lookups are
> not possible for the client or server."
> Now, I wonder why we're going to spend a lot of time defining something
> that is essentially DNS-SRV over XMPP. Why not encourage people to
> deploy SRV instead?
One practical reason is that the people who write code in the XMPP servers
are not always the same as the people who configure DNS records, at least in
larger organizations :) This seems like a problem that XMPP is well suited
Another consideration: querying SRV records takes a fair bit of code and
complexity in the client on some platforms. It's easier for an XMPP client
to parse XMPP messages.
> Peter Saint-Andre
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards