A modest proposal.

[C. Scott Ananian]

On Feb 19, 2008 7:57 PM, Robert McQueen <robert.mcqueen at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
> C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> Currently we use the buddy key as this unifying key, but I very much
> like the idea of providing extra information to open up the prospect of
> communicating between schools, and allowing the XOs to exist in the
> global XMPP namespace.

Ok, what extra information are you suggesting?  I really have no clue
what your phrase "global XMPP namespace" is supposed to mean.  Don't
you mean "global DNS namespace", as the bits to the left of the @ sign
are supposed to be resolvable via DNS, no?  XMPP doesn't have any part
in that resolution.

> Correct, but the problem here is that makes the addressing essentially
> incompatible with re-using the existing (and globally-compatible)
> namespace.

Again, I have no idea what you're getting at here.

> In general, people don't run one XMPP server each.

Is your contention that people should run *less* than one XMPP server
each (which I strenuously disagree with), or that they typically run
*more* than one XMPP server each (and that's what the 'resource' part
of a JID is supposed to be for)?

> The odd part seems to be that DNS must be involved.

How is this odd?  DNS is the second-oldest part of the internet.

> You don't need to mangle
> things via DNS in order to allow a higher-level component to interpret
> them and be able to make a mapping between identifiers (however they're
> derived) and local IPv6 addresses.

The key point is that *no other server need be involved*.  I also
prefer to avoid mDNS as much as possible, for reasons of scalability.
And I've presented an existence proof that this can be done.
 --scott

-- 
                         ( http://cscott.net/ )