On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 18:58 -0400, John Leslie wrote:
We're facing the interoperability problem here. You've taken a reasonable
tack on what multiple SRV RRs could mean, but it significantly increases
the complexity. You've implemented a reasonable interpretation; but there
are other interpretations which will seem reasonable to other implementers.
I don't think 'pick one SRV record at random from the set and base your
result on that record alone' is really what Tony considers "reasonable",
although that's what his implementation is doing. It's just that he
didn't test this case, that's all.
I don't really see any _other_ reasonable interpretation of what
multiple SRV records could mean, and it is natural to expect that just
as with any other DNS record, multiple records would be permitted.
If you want to impose a maximum number of SRV records (be it 1, 5, 10 or
some other number) then you need to make it explicit, and hence remove
the scope for local interpretation. You should also explicitly define
the behaviour which is expected if that limit is exceeded.
--
dwmw2