[Standards] dialback refactoring
jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu
Wed Jun 24 20:49:50 UTC 2009
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 14:16 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Phillip Hancke has done yeoman's work on simplifying XEP-0220 (Server
> I've completed a review of his work and it looks quite good to me (the
> URL above now includes my edits). Ralph Meijer sent me some review
> comments via private email, most of which I have also incorporated. A
> few issues remain:
> 1. The terminology can be a bit confusing. I really like the term
> "domain pair" (introduced by Phillip). However, we now talk about
> Originating Domain and Receiving Domain as well as Originating Server,
> Receiving Server, and Authoritative Server. Perhaps it would be a bit
> clearer to use the following terms?
> - - Sending Domain
> - - Receiving Domain
> - - Originating Host (actual machine that initiates the negotiation)
> - - Accepting Host (actual machine to which Originating Host connects)
> - - Authoritative Host (actual machine that Accepting Host checks with)
Yeah, that seems ok, although I would probably keep 'Server' instead of
'Host' and 'Receiving Server' to keep in sync with RFC 3920 and
XEP-0185. To make it more real, make sure the hosts have different
hostnames (duck.example.org, swan.example.org and elephant.example.com)
from the domains (example.org, example.com). Maybe also show the
associated DNS records (SRV and A).
> 2. Error handling. Ralph pointed out that we could use stanza errors
> instead of the 'condition' attribute. I rather like that idea (let's
> re-use what we've already defined), which is probably why I was re-using
> stream errors in version 0.3 of XEP-0220 (what is currently published).
> However, the authoritative-host-unknown condition that Phillip has
> defined does not have an exact counterpart in stanza errors, so we might
> need to define something new.
We can go two ways here for which we would need to define a new
condition in the dialback namespace: have a application specific error
condition like stanza errors to go with a general host-unknown
condition, or only have one error element and use the new one there for
> Ralph, do you have further feedback?
I think you removed the confusing switching of roles of the servers
between sections, per my request. I.e. you switched the hosts in two
sections, but forgot to make the associated changes to the hash and
session IDs. I expect to see only one stream ID (D60000229F) and one
The hash calculation would also need to updated to that effect.
Obviously, if you change the Receiving domain to example.com, this needs
to be recalculated anyway.
I expect the title for example 13 to be from the other perspective.
"already use for domain 'A' if"
"already used for domain 'A', if"
I'd like to see a paragraph on how bouncing works exactly, with an
Thanks for the refactoring. It is a way better read overall.
More information about the Standards