[Standards] Proper SRV Record Fallback

Travis Burtrum travis at burtrum.org
Tue Mar 20 12:53:38 UTC 2018

Hi Jonas,

Thanks for resurrecting the thread.  And nice work with aioxmpp!

On 03/19/2018 03:24 PM, Jonas Wielicki wrote:
> - authentication failures are treated as fatal and abort everything 
> immediately.

You mean username/password errors?  Not TLS certificate authentication
errors, just to be perfectly clear.

But this is basically the same fallback behavior Conversations has
implemented since adding 368 in January 2016.

Would it be appropriate to put something like this in 368 as normative
language, ie, 'we expect clients/servers implementing 368 to fallback to
other SRV records like so...'?  Or should it be an informational XEP?
Some random place in the wiki or?  I'd vote in 368 because it affects
the way server administrators can set up records.

Also need to slightly adapt them for S2S.

Any thoughts?


More information about the Standards mailing list