On 17 jul 2010, at 21.39, Joe Touch wrote:
Are you suggesting a new RR instead of the SRV or in addition to the SRV?
The latter seems useful; the former begs the question of how many SRV
variants we would want.
A new RR that is a replacement for the SRV for the cases where one need a URI
and not only hostname+port.
Otherwise, same syntax and usage as SRV (i.e. prefix of the owner decide the
protocol and service etc).
It is therefore more a replacement for SRV than replacement for NAPTR (that
give back a list of services given a domain name).
On 7/17/2010 12:33 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 17 jul 2010, at 21.27, Joe Touch wrote:
The appropriate solution for a port discovered via SRV records is to use
And, for the ones that have not followed the whole history of this last
call, my view is that a new RR type is needed, and I propose a URI resource
record that as RDATA have the full URI to the resource in question.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Ietf mailing list