mirror of
https://github.com/moparisthebest/xeps
synced 2024-11-24 18:22:24 -05:00
0.6
git-svn-id: file:///home/ksmith/gitmigration/svn/xmpp/trunk@454 4b5297f7-1745-476d-ba37-a9c6900126ab
This commit is contained in:
Peter Saint-Andre
parent
d605db4a2a
commit
1774210e18
80
xep-0156.xml
80
xep-0156.xml
@ -6,8 +6,8 @@
|
||||
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='xep.xsl'?>
|
||||
<xep>
|
||||
<header>
|
||||
<title>A DNS TXT Resource Record Format for XMPP Connection Methods</title>
|
||||
<abstract>This document defines a DNS TXT Resource Record format for use in specifying methods of connecting to an XMPP server.</abstract>
|
||||
<title>Discovering Alternative Connection Methods</title>
|
||||
<abstract>This document defines a DNS TXT Resource Record format for use in discovering alternative methods of connecting to an XMPP server.</abstract>
|
||||
&LEGALNOTICE;
|
||||
<number>0156</number>
|
||||
<status>Experimental</status>
|
||||
@ -23,6 +23,12 @@
|
||||
<shortname>N/A</shortname>
|
||||
&hildjj;
|
||||
&stpeter;
|
||||
<revision>
|
||||
<version>0.6</version>
|
||||
<date>2007-01-30</date>
|
||||
<initials>psa</initials>
|
||||
<remark><p>Finally and definitively removed _xmpp-client-tcp and _xmpp-server-tcp attributes since clients and servers should use either SRV records or standard XMPP ports (5222 or 5269).</p></remark>
|
||||
</revision>
|
||||
<revision>
|
||||
<version>0.5</version>
|
||||
<date>2007-01-30</date>
|
||||
@ -37,7 +43,7 @@
|
||||
</revision>
|
||||
<revision>
|
||||
<version>0.3</version>
|
||||
<date>2005-05-16</date>
|
||||
<date>2006-05-16</date>
|
||||
<initials>psa</initials>
|
||||
<remark><p>Clarified order of lookups; restored _xmpp-client-tcp and added _xmpp-server-tcp as optional records if SRV is not supported or accessible.</p></remark>
|
||||
</revision>
|
||||
@ -73,23 +79,22 @@
|
||||
</revision>
|
||||
</header>
|
||||
<section1 topic='Introduction' anchor='intro'>
|
||||
<p>Although &rfc3920; specifies the use of TCP as the method of connecting to an XMPP server, other connection methods are possible. These include the &xep0124; method, the &xep0025; method (now deprecated), and less common methods such as &wap;. For some of these methods, it is necessary to discover further parameters before connecting, such as the HTTP URL of an alternative connection manager. Currently, if a client application needs to discover connection methods before connecting to an XMPP service, the relevant information must be provided manually by a human user, which is cumbersome and error-prone. Thankfully, there are several potential ways to complete this pre-connection service discovery in an automated fashion:</p>
|
||||
<p>Although &rfc3920; specifies the use of TCP as the method of connecting to an XMPP server, alternative connection methods exist, including the &xep0124; method, the &xep0025; method (now deprecated), and less common methods such as &wap;. For some of these methods, it is necessary to discover further parameters before connecting, such as the HTTP URL of an alternative connection manager. Currently, if a client application needs to discover alternative connection methods before connecting to an XMPP service, the relevant information must be provided manually by a human user, which is cumbersome and error-prone. Thankfully, there are several potential ways to complete this pre-connection service discovery in an automated fashion:</p>
|
||||
<ol>
|
||||
<li><p>Specify a &w3wsdl; definition (or other XML file format) and a canonical URL for that definition at a domain that offers XMPP services. Unfortunately, this approach requires access to the HTTP server for the domain (and quite possibly to the root directory thereof), which may be difficult for XMPP server administrators to arrange. In addition, it requires a client to retrieve the relevant file via HTTP before performing DNS lookups and XMPP connection; it would be more efficient to use recognized DNS methods since DNS lookups are already required by <cite>RFC 3920</cite>.</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p>Specify a way to define the required service discovery information as part of the existing DNS SRV records (see &rfc2782;) for a domain that offers XMPP services. While this approach sounds promising, it is not feasible since the DNS SRV Target field can be used only to specify domain names and cannot be used to specify full URIs (such as the URL for an HTTP connection manager).</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p>Specify a way to define the required service discovery using the "straightforward NAPTR" (S-NAPTR) profile of the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (see &rfc3958; and &rfc3401;). Unfortunately, S-NAPTR also does not allow inclusion of full URIs, and thus does not meet the requirements for discovery of XMPP connection methods.</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p>Specify a way to define the required service discovery using the "URI-enabled NAPTR" (U-NAPTR) profile of the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (see &unaptr;). While this is a valid approach that is worth pursuing, the authors are concerned about the deployability of such an approach given the rarity of support for DDDS and U-NAPTR, especially in client-side applications (the main focus of this specification).</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p>Specify a way to define the required service discovery information via properly-formatted DNS TXT records (see &rfc1464;). While this approach requires an update to the DNS records for the server domain, that is usually necessary in order to establish XMPP services in the first place. Furthermore, although there are some perils to be avoided in the use of DNS TXT records (e.g., wildcards), the technology is well understood and widely deployed (e.g., it is used by the <link url='http://www.openspf.org/'>Sender Policy Framework</link> and <link url='http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/safety/technologies/senderid/default.mspx'>SenderID</link> email server verification technologies).</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p>Define a &w3wsdl; definition (or other XML file format) and a canonical URL for that definition at a domain that offers XMPP services. Unfortunately, this approach requires access to the HTTP server for the domain (and quite possibly to the root directory thereof), which may be difficult for XMPP server administrators to arrange. In addition, it requires a client to retrieve the relevant file via HTTP before performing DNS lookups and XMPP connection; it would be more efficient to use recognized DNS methods since DNS lookups are already required by <cite>RFC 3920</cite>.</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p>Define a way to specify alternative connection methods as part of the existing DNS SRV records (see &rfc2782;) for a domain that offers XMPP services. While this approach sounds promising, it is not feasible since the DNS SRV Target field can be used only to specify domain names and cannot be used to specify full URIs (such as the URL for an HTTP connection manager).</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p>Define a way to specify alternative connection methods using the "straightforward NAPTR" (S-NAPTR) profile of the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (see &rfc3958; and &rfc3401;). Unfortunately, S-NAPTR also does not allow inclusion of full URIs, and thus does not meet the requirements for discovery of alternative connection methods.</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p>Define a way to specify alternative connection methods using the "URI-enabled NAPTR" (U-NAPTR) profile of the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (see &unaptr;). While this is a valid approach that is worth pursuing, the authors are concerned about the deployability of such an approach given the rarity of support for DDDS and U-NAPTR, especially in client-side applications (the main focus of this specification).</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p>Define a way to specify alternative connection methods via properly-formatted DNS TXT records (see &rfc1464;). While this approach requires an update to the DNS records for the server domain, that is usually necessary in order to establish XMPP services in the first place. Furthermore, although there are some perils to be avoided in the use of DNS TXT records (e.g., wildcards), the technology is well understood and widely deployed (e.g., it is used by the <link url='http://www.openspf.org/'>Sender Policy Framework</link> and <link url='http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/safety/technologies/senderid/default.mspx'>SenderID</link> email server verification technologies).</p></li>
|
||||
</ol>
|
||||
<p>Therefore this document defines a way to encapsulate information about XMPP connection methods in DNS TXT resource records. However, the authors will monitor the availability of DDDS-based systems and may request that the methods defined in this document be deprecated at some point in the future.</p>
|
||||
<p>The discovery mechanism specified herein MAY also be used to define the ports at which standard XMPP TCP services are offered; this is especially useful when XMPP service administrators do not have access to SRV records (e.g., because many DNS services do not yet support SRV records). However, any values (e.g., port numbers) presented via SRV records MUST be taken as canonical and MUST supersede values provided via TXT records.</p>
|
||||
<p>This document defines a way to encapsulate information about alternative connection methods in DNS TXT resource records. However, the authors will monitor the availability of DDDS-based systems supporting U-NAPTR, and may request deprecation of the DNS TXT methods defined in this document at some point in the future.</p>
|
||||
</section1>
|
||||
<section1 topic='Record Format' anchor='format'>
|
||||
<p>The following format for DNS TXT resource records is specified in <cite>RFC 1464</cite>:</p>
|
||||
<code><![CDATA[
|
||||
<owner> <class> <ttl> <TXT> <"attribute name=attribute value">
|
||||
]]></code>
|
||||
<p>This document specifies that the following additional rules apply for DNS TXT resource records used to specify XMPP connection methods:</p>
|
||||
<p>This document specifies that the following additional rules apply for DNS TXT resource records used to specify alternative connection methods:</p>
|
||||
<ol>
|
||||
<li>It is RECOMMENDED for the owner to be "_xmppconnect".</li>
|
||||
<li>The class field SHOULD be IN.</li>
|
||||
@ -108,65 +113,48 @@
|
||||
</ol>
|
||||
</section1>
|
||||
<section1 topic='Examples' anchor='examples'>
|
||||
<p>The following examples show three DNS TXT resource records: the first indicates support for the httpbind connection method defined in XEP-0124 including the appropriate URL, the second indicates support for the httppoll connection method defined in XEP-0025 including the appropriate URL, and the third indicates support for WAP connections including the appropriate URL, the fourth indicates support for client connections at TCP port 5222, and the fifth indicates support for server connections at TCP port 5269.</p>
|
||||
<p>The following examples show two DNS TXT resource records: the first indicates support for the httpbind connection method defined in XEP-0124 and the second indicates support for WAP connections (both include appropriate URLs).</p>
|
||||
<example caption='TXT Resource Records'><![CDATA[
|
||||
_xmppconnect IN TXT "_xmpp-client-httpbind=https://web.jabber.org:8080/bind.cgi"
|
||||
_xmppconnect IN TXT "_xmpp-client-wap=http://wap.jabber.org/connector.cgi"
|
||||
_xmppconnect IN TXT "_xmpp-client-tcp=5222"
|
||||
_xmppconnect IN TXT "_xmpp-server-tcp=5269"
|
||||
]]></example>
|
||||
<p>Note: These examples are included for the sake of completeness. As mentioned, use of the "_xmpp-client-tcp" and "_xmpp-server-tcp" attributes is discouraged, since SRV records are preferred.</p>
|
||||
</section1>
|
||||
<section1 topic='Security Considerations' anchor='security'>
|
||||
<p>It is possible that advertisement of connection methods other than the standard TCP connection method may introduce security vulnerabilities, since a connecting entity (usually a client) might deliberately seek to connect using the method with the weakest security mechanisms (e.g., no channel encryption or relatively weak authentication). Care must be taken in determining which connection methods are appropriate to advertise.</p>
|
||||
<p>It is possible that advertisement of alternative connection methods may introduce security vulnerabilities, since a connecting entity (usually a client) might deliberately seek to connect using the method with the weakest security mechanisms (e.g., no channel encryption or relatively weak authentication). Care must be taken in determining which alternative connection methods are appropriate to advertise.</p>
|
||||
</section1>
|
||||
<section1 topic='IANA Considerations' anchor='iana'>
|
||||
<p>This document requires no interaction with &IANA;.</p>
|
||||
</section1>
|
||||
<section1 topic='XMPP Registrar Considerations' anchor='registrar'>
|
||||
<section2 topic='DNS TXT Records Registry' anchor='registrar-dnstxt'>
|
||||
<p>The XMPP Registrar shall maintain a registry of attributes for use in DNS TXT resource records that advertise XMPP connection methods.</p>
|
||||
<section3 topic='Process' anchor='registrar-dnstxt-process'>
|
||||
<section2 topic='Alternative Connection Methods Registry' anchor='registrar-altconn'>
|
||||
<p>The XMPP Registrar shall maintain a registry of attributes for use in DNS TXT resource records that advertise alternative connection methods.</p>
|
||||
<section3 topic='Process' anchor='registrar-altconn-process'>
|
||||
®PROCESS;
|
||||
<code><![CDATA[
|
||||
<attribute>
|
||||
<name>the name of the attribute</name>
|
||||
<desc>a natural-language description of the connection method</desc>
|
||||
<value>the syntax or datatype of the attribute value</value>
|
||||
<doc>the document in which the connection method is specified</doc>
|
||||
</attribute>
|
||||
<method>
|
||||
<name>the name of the attribute to be used in DNS TXT records</name>
|
||||
<desc>a natural-language description of the alternative connection method</desc>
|
||||
<value>the syntax of the DNS TXT record attribute value</value>
|
||||
<doc>the document in which the alternative connection method is specified</doc>
|
||||
</method>
|
||||
]]></code>
|
||||
<p>The registrant may register more than one attribute at a time, each contained in a separate <attribute/> element.</p>
|
||||
<p>The registrant may register more than one attribute at a time, each contained in a separate <method/> element.</p>
|
||||
</section3>
|
||||
<section3 topic='Initial Registration' anchor='registrar-dnstxt-init'>
|
||||
<section3 topic='Initial Registration' anchor='registrar-altconn-init'>
|
||||
<code><![CDATA[
|
||||
<attribute>
|
||||
<method>
|
||||
<name>_xmpp-client-httpbind</name>
|
||||
<desc>the HTTP Binding connection method</desc>
|
||||
<value>the http: or https: URL at which to contact the HTTP Binding connection manager or proxy</value>
|
||||
<doc>XEP-0124</doc>
|
||||
</attribute>
|
||||
</method>
|
||||
|
||||
<attribute>
|
||||
<method>
|
||||
<name>_xmpp-client-httppoll</name>
|
||||
<desc>the HTTP Polling connection method</desc>
|
||||
<value>the http: or https: URL at which to contact the HTTP Polling connection manager or proxy</value>
|
||||
<doc>XEP-0025</doc>
|
||||
</attribute>
|
||||
|
||||
<attribute>
|
||||
<name>_xmpp-client-tcp</name>
|
||||
<desc>standard client-to-server TCP connection method (usually on port 5222)</desc>
|
||||
<value>may contain the port number (however, this should be discovered via SRV)</value>
|
||||
<doc>RFC 3920</doc>
|
||||
</attribute>
|
||||
|
||||
<attribute>
|
||||
<name>_xmpp-server-tcp</name>
|
||||
<desc>standard server-to-server TCP connection method (usually on port 5269)</desc>
|
||||
<value>may contain the port number (however, this should be discovered via SRV)</value>
|
||||
<doc>RFC 3920</doc>
|
||||
</attribute>
|
||||
</method>
|
||||
]]></code>
|
||||
</section3>
|
||||
</section2>
|
||||
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user