Eliot Lear wrote:
Joe,
SRV records are not equivalent to either assigned or mutually-negotiated
ports; they would require extra messages, extra round-trip times, and/or
extra services (DNS) beyond what is currently required.
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that no assignments be done, but
that SRV records be used where appropriate. If setup time or circular
dependencies are a concern, SRV records may not be appropriate.
Right - I agree that assignments should not differentiate between privilege.
SRV records serve two purposes: to unload the fixed list from IANA (like
moving hosts.txt to the DNS did) and to allow local control over the map
between service name and port (which can allow more than 65,000 services
total).
The first use is fine, but overkill IMO for a list with 65,000 entries
at most. The second is a problem, for reasons explained in my I-D,
because it puts control over host service offerings in the hands of
whomever controls its DNS (e.g., another thing for ISPs to claim makes
you a commercial customer at commercial prices) and because it's
inefficient.
Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf