[Standards] NEW: XEP-0279 (Server IP Check)

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 12 14:26:45 UTC 2010


On 12 March 2010 14:15, Nicolas Vérité <nicolas.verite at process-one.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 14:02, Matthew Wild <mwild1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12 March 2010 10:37, Nicolas Vérité <nicolas.verite at process-one.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 19:53, XMPP Extensions Editor <editor at xmpp.org> wrote:
>>>> Version 0.1 of XEP-0279 (Server IP Check) has been released.
>>>>
>>>> Abstract: This specification defines a simple XMPP extension that enables a client to discover its external IP address.
>>>>
>>>> Changelog: Initial published version. (psa)
>>>>
>>>> Diff: N/A
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0279.html
>>>
>>> I am really confused here: Are we reinventing the wheel? Why add this
>>> entropy? STUN is there, well thought out, coded and strongly tested,
>>> though maybe a bit complex. If we (improve and) accept this XEP, then
>>> what CAN/SHOULD/MUST clients and/or servers implement then? STUN
>>> and/or SIC?
>>

>
>> I think the XEP needs to be updated to make this clear. Could the
>> people interested in seeing this XEP implemented perhaps suggest some
>> alternative text for the introduction?
>
> The intro might not be the place to work out most in this phase. I
> believe we first need to address philosophy issues (iq or stream
> feature?), then setup rules for clients and servers developers saying
> what to use first, and what else as a fallback.

Ah yes, forgot to address this in my previous message.

I'm not sure that including it in a stream feature is nice. One minute
people are saying no-one is going to want to use this XEP, and then
they're suggesting putting it ina stream feature to all clients (most
of whom aren't interested).

The main reason I don't like it though is that it really isn't a
feature. It's not something the stream has to offer, not something the
client can negotiate - which is more relevant now that features are
more closely tied to negotiation in 3920bis.

It was brought to my attention that XEP-0115 also uses stream:features
this way, and how to fix that I'm not sure, but I don't think we want
to go further in that direction.

Matthew

(I hope this bikeshed looks pretty by the time everyone's finished with it)



More information about the Standards mailing list