Paul Vixie <vixie(_at_)fh(_dot_)vix(_dot_)com> writes:
...
Furthermore, DNS URIs do not require the use of the DNS protocol at
all, it just denote a DNS resource. DNS URIs can be resolved via HTTP
or something else. Having the RD bit present is a hint to the DNS
protocol; the RD bit has no connection with the DNS resource that the
URI denote.
...
very well. then i request that you remove the "hostport" from the syntax.
The rationale being?
The hostport describes the authority that know the intended DNS
resource. An authority is useful even for abstract, non-DNS-protocol,
DNS resources. DNS resources themselves are indexed by (NAME, CLASS,
TYPE), but to distinguish between the answer that entity A
knows/generate, and the answer that entity B knows/generate, an
authority scope like "hostport" is needed.
Most applications probably will not care, and use the "default"
authority, trusting the local server to do the right thing. But for
internal DNS environments, specifying the authority could be required.
I agree it is less confusing if the word "hostport" was avoided, and
the word "authority" is used instead. Also, using the word
"authority" instead of "server" elsewhere would also improve matters.
I have made this change for the next revision, a snapshot is available
from <http://josefsson.org/draft-josefsson-dns-url.txt>.
Thanks,
Simon