ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-daboo-srv-email

2010-01-08 09:29:58

Agree on both issues -- very convincing arguments for going
ahead with SRV, but, as we find ourselves moving back into a
world in which it is common for people to use multiple devices
to access the same mailbox, I think it would be worth the
investment to again see if we can make progress on
properly-secured, client-device-independent, portable full
configuration information.

   john


--On Friday, January 08, 2010 14:17 +0000 Tony Finch
<dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> wrote:


On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:

I agree with Cyrus.  Even if the market has reached a
workable compromise for the time being by using well-known
host names, it has done so at the cost of flexibility which
SRV records could provide.  I think it would be very useful
to document the naming conventions that will allow current
clients to find the servers, but I don't believe that's a
reason to *not* document a more robust and formal SRV
record protocol as well in the hope that clients and
configurations will move to that.

Exactly right IMO.

Thanks for all your arguments. I have been convinced. Perhaps
I should be less negative about the likelihood of deploying
improvements...

I also fear that an effort to do something more elaborate
with XML and web servers and so on carries with it a very
high liklihood of failure, and even if we manage to agree on
something (probably at some distant point in the future), it
will then fail to deploy.

Actually I'm less negative about this because it has clearer
benefits. For example it allows an operator to override an
MUA's built-in preferences. The big question is whether we can
get the various MUA vendors to co-operate instead of
continuing to do their own thing.

Tony.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>