[Standards] XEP-0065: zeroconf?

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Mar 11 04:09:07 UTC 2010

On 3/10/10 9:05 PM, Matthew Wild wrote:
> On 11 March 2010 03:59, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>> On 2/26/10 4:10 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> Marcus Lundblad and I were chatting about XEP-0065 (SOCKS5 Bytestreams)
>>> the other day and we concluded that the 'zeroconf' attribute for
>>> <streamhost/> element is probably unnecessary. Is anyone using it? If
>>> not, I would argue for deleting it.
>> Given that no one has posted in reply, I'm inclined to conclude that we
>> don't have strong support for the 'zeroconf' attribute.
> Me too. I think you'll tend to already know the IP/port of the entity
> on the local network if you're going to offer it to someone else. Also
> if the recipient is on a different network to you then you may
> actually be referring to a different proxy to the one they see, by
> using a local DNS entry.

Agreed on both points.


Peter Saint-Andre

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6820 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20100310/93b2dd1a/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list