John C Klensin wrote:
And, to add one more observation to Keith's list, unless one is
extremely careful, especially when considering using SRV to add
there are cases where SRV is useful, but it's a big stretch to
call it a great leap forward.
As usual, I am confused.
The MX record was, in fact, a great leap forward (after a number of false
starts.) I can tout its success vigorously because I had nothing to do with it
but have always marveled at how profound its benefit has been. Indeed I'd be
happy to wax extensively on the basis of my views, but I suspect that a
scholarly consideration of the MX contribution is not quite the focus for this
SRV instantiates the MX service model, except for other protocols.
As long as we ignore the underscore names, etc. "encoding" methods that were
chosen for defining a particular SRV -- and by ignore, I mean ignore, rather
than imply anything positive or negative -- then I do not see why SRV is more
(or less) dangerous than MX.
Or perhaps I should be asking: MX was excellent for a particular service model.
And rendezvous requirements do suggest that there is benefit is being able to
have different services, under a generic domain, vectored to different actual hosts.
1) Aren't there other instances of that model -- I'll call it a proxy or
2) Aren't there other models that it could be useful for?
If there are cases for which SRV is "dangerous" for, what are they? What makes
them more dangerous than, say, using MX records?
I saw the long list of generic dangers of using the DNS for anything. My
question is for what cases using SRV is particularly bad and why?
Ietf mailing list