Re: [apps-discuss] [port-srv-reg] New Version Notification for draft-gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify-00

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 7/1/10 11:01 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> A point of clarification...
>>>
>>> On 6/30/10 4:01 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>
>>>> "xmpp" is does not have an Assigned Number, and is not being used 'locally', and
> 
> Could you clarify what it means to use something "locally"?

That's the text RFC 2782; I presume it means "has meaning at the two endpoints,
rather than in an IANA registry".

>>>> was never registered with the SRV registry either. Yes, there appear to be a few
>>>> other uses of SRV records other than for the kind of services indicated in the
>>>> IANA ports tale or the SRV registry.
>>> XMPP does have two registered ports (5222 and 5269)
>>
>> Agreed - neither is listed as "xmpp", though.
> 
> Correct.
> 
>> "xmpp-client" and "xmpp-server" are both listed in IANA ports and in the DNS SRV
>> registry, though.
>>
>> The point above is about using "xmpp" as the service string.
> 
> Is this a reference to the IM and presence SRV label registries called
> for by RFC 3861?

Yes. Those seem like they would need to be in the SRV registry, not a separate
registry, AFAICT. The problem is that RFC3861 is using these labels in a way
that seems a bit inconsistent with what is expected from RFC2782:

	_im._bip.example.com

I.e., 2872 seems like it would expect, e.g., adding _im or _pres in front of
_bip in front of a transport protocol string:

	_im._bip._tcp.example.com (or for _udp)
	
	_pres._bip._tcp.example.com (or for _udp)

RFC3861 omits the transport protocol in that string.

The example in RFC 3920 is consistent with RFC2782, IMO:

	_xmpp-client._tcp.example.com

As is RFC 3263:

	_sip._tcp.example.com

Joe

> http://www.iana.org/assignments/im-srv-labels/im-srv-labels.xhtml
> 
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/pres-srv-labels/pres-srv-labels.xhtml
> 
> Peter
>