[Standards] Call for Experience: XEP-0368: SRV records for XMPP over TLS

Travis Burtrum travis at burtrum.org
Thu Feb 13 04:32:39 UTC 2020


On 2/11/20 11:29 AM, Jonas Schäfer (XSF Editor) wrote:
> 1. What software has XEP-0368 implemented? Please note that the
> protocol must be implemented in at least two separate codebases (at
> least one of which must be free or open-source software) in order to
> advance from Draft to Final.

Conversations and Dino both implement this as well.

> 2. Have developers experienced any problems with the protocol as
> defined in XEP-0368? If so, please describe the problems and, if
> possible, suggested solutions
> 3. Is the text of XEP-0368 clear and unambiguous? Are more examples
> needed? Is the conformance language (MAY/SHOULD/MUST) appropriate?
> Have developers found the text confusing at all? Please describe any
> suggestions you have for improving the text.

It seems many implementations have problems (library constraints) or
choose not to (simplicity) support the mixing behavior.  Conversations
is the only implementation I know of off the top of my head that does
implement it, I wrote that implementation before this XEP existed,
originally had it as a MUST, ended up changing it to a SHOULD, and now
it seems likely it should be changed to a MAY.

In practice, it doesn't matter, the server administrator can't actually
count on anyone accessing any of the SRV records in any specific order
because any network could have any types of blocks/constraints on it.
Therefore pending further comments here I'll submit a PR to propose
changing:

> Both 'xmpp-' and 'xmpps-' records SHOULD be treated as the same record
with regard to connection order as specified by RFC 2782 [3], in that
all priorities and weights are mixed. This enables the server operator
to decide if they would rather clients connect with STARTTLS or direct
TLS. However, clients MAY choose to prefer one type of connection over
the other.

to something like this instead:

> Both 'xmpp-' and 'xmpps-' records MAY be treated as the same record
with regard to connection order as specified by RFC 2782 [3], in that
all priorities and weights are mixed. Otherwise clients MAY choose to
prefer one type of connection over the other.


More information about the Standards mailing list