On 1/30/17 10:52 AM, Travis Burtrum wrote:
On 01/30/2017 12:43 AM, Daurnimator wrote:
5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
No.
The stuff in 'requirements' are not requirements but implementation instructions
When ALPN is used protocol MUST be 'xmpp-client' where 'xmpps-client' is the
SRV 'service'.
When ALPN is used protocol MUST be 'xmpp-server' where 'xmpps-server' is the
SRV 'service'.
I guess those are both requirements and implementation instructions,
suggestions for different wording are welcome, but it seems clear to me.
The phrase "is the SRV 'service'" seems confusing to me.
That's exactly the language the SRV rfc uses:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2782
Here is the format of the SRV RR, whose DNS type code is 33:
_Service._Proto.Name TTL Class SRV Priority Weight Port Target"
It goes onto explain what a Service is, so I believe I used the correct
terminology there.
Agreed. You might phrase it as:
When ALPN is used, the ALPN protocol MUST be 'xmpp-client', where
the SRV Service is 'xmpps-client'.
I have one other comment, which is that the IANA considerations section
is underspecified. As hinted in XEP-0053, it's really best if the XMPP
Registrar acts as a single point of contact with the IANA. Even so, it
would be helpful for this section to specify what is to be registered
with the IANA.
For example, in RFC 7301 we see registrations such as:
Protocol: HTTP/1.1
Identification Sequence:
0x68 0x74 0x74 0x70 0x2f 0x31 0x2e 0x31 ("http/1.1")
Reference: [RFC7230]
Let's add registrations like that to XEP-0368 for xmpp-client and
xmpp-sever.
Peter
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
_______________________________________________
