[Standards] guest access

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Fri Jun 26 12:46:33 UTC 2015


On 26 June 2015 at 13:38, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter at andyet.net> wrote:
> On 6/26/15 5:26 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
>>
>> On 26 June 2015 at 00:51, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter at andyet.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Thus we need a way for a client to discover where it can authenticate as
>>> an
>>> ad-hoc or guest user. We don't want to use a DNS SRV Service name of
>>> "xmpp-client" because that will point clients to the service endpoint for
>>> registered users. What we came up with was to use a new DNS SRV Service
>>> name
>>> of "xmpp-guest", which would point to the service endpoint for guest
>>> access.
>>>
>>> Has anyone else deployed this kind of pattern? If so, how did you solve
>>> the
>>> problem of service endpoint discovery? Would you find it helpful to have
>>> a
>>> DNS SRV Service name for this kind of access?
>>
>>
>> Would a TXT record not be more appropriate?
>
>
> Not according to IETF folks. There's a real animus against TXT records for
> SRV-ish things (and this seems like one of them).
>
>> Containing the XMPP host
>> of a suitable place to authenticate anonymously? A SRV will tell you
>> where to connect to, but not which XMPP host to use.
>
>
> Sure, you need to do the SRV two-step.

I'm not sure I understand completely, then. Are you proposing that the
target of the SRV record is the XMPP host (and thus ignore the port?)?

>> TXT gives you
>> both (because you can proceed with the usual SRV lookups for the guest
>> host, once you know it).
>>
>> If you're using the same XMPP host for non-guest and guest, I don't
>> see the need for an extra DNS record. I don't see a use-case for for
>> non-guest and guest on the same XMPP host but different network hosts
>
>
> To my mind, it's about separation of concerns - I'd rather not mix my
> anonymous users with my registered users.

That aspect I understand and agree with completely.

>> (just use clustering(TM)).
>
> Given that we're using Prosody, I suppose I'll take up *that* topic in the
> Prosody chatroom. ;-)

Any time :)

Regards,
Matthew



More information about the Standards mailing list