--On Tuesday, 21 November, 2006 22:07 -0500 Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
actually the SRV record can easily be a step sideways or
backward if not carefully used. let's see...it slows down
session establishment; increases the load on DNS; increases
the potential for failures due to misconfiguration, link
congestion, link failure, or server failure; and in some cases
gives ISPs yet another hook to impose walled gardens on their
customers, decrease the transparency of the network, and thus
impair the ability of the network to support new applications.
And, to add one more observation to Keith's list, unless one is
extremely careful, especially when considering using SRV to add
support for protocols that were defined without it, one also
risks recreating all of the problems that caused WKS to be
deprecated. In other words,
* If there is no SRV record present, can I assume the
service is not supported? (No)
* If there is an SRV record present, can I assume the
server is supported and available? (No, not that either).
there are cases where SRV is useful, but it's a big stretch to
call it a great leap forward.
Agreed.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf