[Standards] Council Minutes 2019-07-10

Florian Schmaus flo at geekplace.eu
Fri Jul 19 11:52:11 UTC 2019


On 19.07.19 07:36, Travis Burtrum wrote:
> On 7/17/19 9:57 AM, Tedd Sterr wrote:
> 
>> *3b) PR #796 - XEP-0368: clarify what happens when a `.` target is
>> published* - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/796
>> Jonas: +1
>> Link: +1 (definitely!)
>> Georg: +1 (this is just a clarification of RFC 2782)
>> Dave: [pending]
>> Kev: [pending]
> Part 2:
> 
>> The initiating party MUST NOT perform A/AAAA fallback as per RFC 6120
> (since the service provider has already indicated that the SRV protocol
> is supported).
> 
> Part 2 adds new MUST NOT normative language to a Draft XEP that simply
> didn't exist before. Also in my opinion this language is just wrong, and
> if I were to make a change to the XEP here it would be the opposite,
> something like:
> 
>> If the initiating party cannot connect via either SRV record, it
> SHOULD perform A/AAAA fallback to port(s) of it's choice (perhaps 443,
> 5223, etc) because, in the absence of DNSSEC, SRV records cannot be trusted.

If in the absence of DNSSEC SRV records cannot be trusted, which is of
course true, why should you trust A/AAAA resource records?

> I went ahead and made a pull request with this text here:
> 
> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/801
> 
> I also think just adding Part 1 and nothing else would be equally fine,
> allowing client/server developers decide on their own if or how to
> fallback, in practice they will anyway regardless.

+1 for just adding Part 1.

- Florian

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 618 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20190719/b818d516/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list