On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
On Sep 12, 2011, at 5:56 PM, Nico Williams <nico(_at_)cryptonector(_dot_)com>
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
On 9/12/2011 2:43 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
I meant existence as in "how it's used". I don't see why
Windows/AD/Samba/... can use SRV RRs the smart way while the rest of
us must not. That would be silly. It's not our fault that RFC2782 is
outdated. Nor is it our job to update it.
The Windows examples explain their use as basically a naming convention for
servers, where they
a) add a few prefixes to the FQDN
b) some of which violate DNS specs
c) where the FQDN doesn't match the hostname
i.e., they add foo._bar.nsf.example.net when they intend a FQDN of
They have prefixes for domainnames, yes (of course FQDN), where the
domainnames do not correspond to hosts, but to what we colloquially
refer to as "domains".
All of the most important of these SRV RR uses in Windows use RRset
naming conventions that differ from those in RFC2782. There are many
implementations of this (I know of at least four in the *nix space,
probably more if we include proprietary scripts written using Perl5,
Python, ..., that must abound in corporate land). And of course,
there's Widnows'. I know of at least three server-side
implementations (though, of course, the DNS server component itself
requires no special sauce in order to support any of this, as DNS
servers do not encode RRset naming conventions like RFC2782's).
There are three problems with that - which could interfere with other
interpretations of those SRV records (e.g., tools that might scan those
records to monitor service liveness).
Nonsense. This stuff exists and has been deployed for over a decade.
I've never heard of a tool choking on these SRV RRsets. If you have,
please list them and explain why anyone should care that there exist
tools which cannot cope with a widely deployed system like this.
But, let's see if we can change the direction of this thread (we're
going in circles).
Would you oppose an update to RFC2782 to standardize different SRV
RRset _name_ conventions?
I would, as per above. That would be pushing context-dependent syntax into
the SRV record rather than using a separate RR - where that syntax belongs.
Note that SRVs changed DNS RRset name conventions but only for the SRV RR.
I.e., the precedent is that changing the syntax requires a new RR.
Then there's no point continuing this discussion without participation
from IESG members.
The I-D authors will have to negotiate without my participation. I
recommend continuing the process until the IESG balks, if they do. If
the IESG balks, then appeal.
Ietf mailing list