Re: [jdev] Google DNS SRV records
Hello I think it is evident from the preceding discussions that I have made a mistake in posting to this list. I apologize for any offense I may have caused to the developers here, or indeed to google if they are in fact listening in. Such was not my intention. This will be last post to this thread. Sincerely, Rory ___ jdev mailing list jdev@jabber.org http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Re: [jdev] Google DNS SRV records
Rory wrote: Hello I think it is evident from the preceding discussions that I have made a mistake in posting to this list. I apologize for any offense I may have caused to the developers here, or indeed to google if they are in fact listening in. Such was not my intention. This will be last post to this thread. Sincerely, Rory Aw, don't take it personally, some folks on this list are a bit prickly. :-) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ jdev mailing list jdev@jabber.org http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Re: [jdev] Google DNS SRV records
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 02:34:02PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Aw, don't take it personally, some folks on this list are a bit prickly. :-) :-) ___ jdev mailing list jdev@jabber.org http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Re: [jdev] Google DNS SRV records
I think you're looking for: http://groups.google.com/group/google-talk-open or http://groups.google.com/group/Google_im On 30/08/05, Rory [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello I think it is evident from the preceding discussions that I have made a mistake in posting to this list. I apologize for any offense I may have caused to the developers here, or indeed to google if they are in fact listening in. Such was not my intention. This will be last post to this thread. Sincerely, Rory ___ jdev mailing list jdev@jabber.org http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev -- - Norman Rasmussen - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Home page: http://norman.rasmussen.co.za/ ___ jdev mailing list jdev@jabber.org http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Re: [jdev] Google DNS SRV records
Rory wrote: On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 02:34:02PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Aw, don't take it personally, some folks on this list are a bit prickly. :-) :-) Stpeter can be the master of understatements. I've been following the discussion with quite a bit of amazement. It's amazing how much miscommunication can happen in one thread. Hope to see you back again, Bart ___ jdev mailing list jdev@jabber.org http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
[jdev] Google DNS SRV records
Hi All, I imagine that the Google Talk Team is listening in on this list so I'm going to make a request from them here. If this is inappropriate or if someone knows of a better channel to communicate with the team, please redirect me. Let me start by saying Welcome (and thanks for the target practice). As for my request: if it is at all possible could you add the DNS SRV record _xmpp-client._tcp.gmail.com for your service. It really is such a simple task but it would make all the difference to developers who are just trying to do a simple bare-bones implementation of the specs. The current situation - 'gmail.com' domain hosted on 'talk.google.com' without the DNS SRV record - requires unnecessary non-standard (as per RFC3920) additions to an XMPP client/library. Though I seriously doubt you need any instructions on how to accomplish this let me just add that I found the directions in the Jabberd 2 Installation and Administration Guide to be very helpful. See: http://jabberd.jabberstudio.org/2/docs/section05.html#5_7 Thanks, Rory ___ jdev mailing list jdev@jabber.org http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Re: [jdev] Google DNS SRV records
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:51, Rory wrote: The current situation - 'gmail.com' domain hosted on 'talk.google.com' without the DNS SRV record - requires unnecessary non-standard (as per RFC3920) additions to an XMPP client/library. Something like connecting to a different address isn't exactly rocket science, though. Naturally it would be good for them to have these records to make users' life easier, but having to connect to a different IP address is something that most libraries have to implement anyway, and that goes for any protocol. :-) TX -- Email: Trejkaz Xaoza [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: http://trypticon.org/ Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73 pgpdbJ8inFO0k.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ jdev mailing list jdev@jabber.org http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Re: [jdev] Google DNS SRV records
Hi Trejkaz, On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 08:56:15PM +1000, Trejkaz wrote: On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:51, Rory wrote: The current situation - 'gmail.com' domain hosted on 'talk.google.com' without the DNS SRV record - requires unnecessary non-standard (as per RFC3920) additions to an XMPP client/library. Something like connecting to a different address isn't exactly rocket science, though. Naturally it would be good for them to have these records to make users' life easier, but having to connect to a different IP address is something that most libraries have to implement anyway, and that goes for any protocol. :-) I understand that it is easy, I've already made the modifications to my library to accomodate it, I just don't want to make those modifications permanent because they are unnecessary cruft. If the spec is followed then there is only a need to accomodate the following information from the user/automated client: (i) their JID; (ii) their password or other authentication token. As far as I'm concerned this is nice, clean and the way things should be. If you permit the user to provide you with a server name and port number then things become more complicated than they need to be. For instance, does the user-supplied server name qualify as a valid identity for the purpose of validating the server's X590 certificate. Or, if there this is an automated client, should we fall back to checking for DNS SRV records if there is no server listening at the specified server address? Do we offer the user configuration options to answer these questions and the others that arise? ... I guess I find that the RFC3920 is flexible and complex enough that I don't wish to see additional de-facto standards materialise that need to be supported. Rory ___ jdev mailing list jdev@jabber.org http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Re: [jdev] Google DNS SRV records
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:06, Rory wrote: If you permit the user to provide you with a server name and port number then things become more complicated than they need to be. For instance, does the user-supplied server name qualify as a valid identity for the purpose of validating the server's X590 certificate. Or, if there this is an automated client, should we fall back to checking for DNS SRV records if there is no server listening at the specified server address? Do we offer the user configuration options to answer these questions and the others that arise? ... More complicated than they need to be? Let's say you remove the option to connect to an alternative IP. This seals off people like me who _need_ this setting to tunnel their XMPP connection through a work firewall. I think the reasonable expectation is that the user's setting always overrides the DNS, whether SRV records exist or not. If the user specifies both the host and the port, you shouldn't need to hit DNS at all. TX -- Email: Trejkaz Xaoza [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: http://trypticon.org/ Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73 pgpQtZx2wa309.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ jdev mailing list jdev@jabber.org http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Re: [jdev] Google DNS SRV records
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 10:19:08PM +1000, Trejkaz wrote: Let's say you remove the option to connect to an alternative IP. This seals off people like me who _need_ this setting to tunnel their XMPP connection through a work firewall. I'll grant you that you're situation sounds relatively complicated, and I have little doubt that such a situation is very common. Perhaps if you could give me a more concrete scenario I would be able to give you a more thought out answer to this point. For example: A network scenario like: - behind a proxy (eg Squid) - doesn't resolve DNS addresses for domains outside the LAN - forces you to use a HTTP tunnel via the CONNECT command to pierce the proxy where the CONNECT command requires you to specify a particular server address and port number. Rory ___ jdev mailing list jdev@jabber.org http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Re: [jdev] Google DNS SRV records
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 10:19:08PM +1000, Trejkaz wrote: On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:06, Rory wrote: If you permit the user to provide you with a server name and port number then things become more complicated than they need to be. For instance, does the user-supplied server name qualify as a valid identity for the purpose of validating the server's X590 certificate. Or, if there this is an automated client, should we fall back to checking for DNS SRV records if there is no server listening at the specified server address? Do we offer the user configuration options to answer these questions and the others that arise? ... More complicated than they need to be? Let's say you remove the option to connect to an alternative IP. This seals off people like me who _need_ this setting to tunnel their XMPP connection through a work firewall. I think the reasonable expectation is that the user's setting always overrides the DNS, whether SRV records exist or not. If the user specifies both the host and the port, you shouldn't need to hit DNS at all. TX I think we may have gone on a tangent there for a minute - my fault no doubt. I just wanted to conclude with a slightly more refined answer to these important issues you have pointed out to me. In my - perhaps idealistic - view of the world, it is the responsibility of the developer of an XMPP client/library to implement the protocol. And it is the responsibility of the protocol to locate the server - which the XMPP protocol does very well. With regard to tunneling through firewalls and proxies - ignoring the issue of corporate policy evasion - I actually believe that this is an area where true XMPP proxies could come to the aid of many. The XMPP protocol provides for proxies, but I don't know if any have yet been built. You could run proxies inside firewalls that might be knowledgeable about HTTP tunneling. Or you could run one on your gateway if it was secure enough. Or you could use publicly accessible XMPP proxies out on the net with a known location - chat.example.com port 443 - to reach your destination - as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thus, I would suggest that time might be well spent building these XMPP proxies. I would also suggest that providing support for XMPP proxies may be a suitable responsibility for the XMPP client/library developers. Rory ___ jdev mailing list jdev@jabber.org http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
