On May 30, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 18:22, Jim Fenton wrote:
(2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in
discussion,
mostly saying "if you support TXT, don't bother with anything
else." Again, no clear consensus.
Agreed. There is also a view that if you go with a new RR type,
don't bother with SSP. By the time a new RR type is widely
deployable, the market will have found a different solution.
Scott K
IMO, I think we should stop wasting further time on this repetitive
issue and just establish two, a new RR with a TXT fallback, as part
of the specs.
SRV provides some extra functionality over an A record for publishing
a website.
But the A record works. Anyone publishing a website needs to provide
the A record. If they just published a SRV record, most clients
wouldn't find or visit the site.
A client needs to support the A record, and because it can safely
assume that every site has an A record, looking for an almost
certainly non-existent SRV record before looking for an A record is
simply overhead and delay. Clients can safely just look for the A
record and save themselves the pain.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html