Hi Patrik,
--On June 24, 2010 6:32:48 PM +0200 Patrik Fältström <paf(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
"in this case" as in the draft under discussion? If so, I don't don't
understand your position. The protocols/services being referenced by the
draft are HTTP protocols, so it is always going to be
SRV-followed-by-HTTP. What is more, simply getting a generic host/path
is not sufficient for client configuration - additional steps are
required to find the principal resource of the user for whom the client
is setting up an "account" (as described in the draft).
The only real differences are, I think (correct me here if I am wrong
Cyrus):
draft-daboo-srv-caldav uses SRV + an http transaction towards a "well
known path", followed by the normal caldav HTTP transactions.
Well, I think .well-know/caldav should be "normal" for CalDAV irrespective
of whether SRV or URI is setup. That still provides major advantages to
clients and server admins.
draft-faltstrom-uri uses the new RR Type URI (that give the path, that
does not have to be the same all over the place), followed by the normal
caldav HTTP transactions.
Personally, I think first of all the URI RR can be useful for many things
(else I would not have written the draft in the first place) and will
push this to an RFC status.
I can certainly see where it would be useful. However, I question your
comments in Section 9 of your draft: specifically that URI should be viewed
as a replacement for SRV. URI (may) make sense for "resource" discovery,
but I don't believe that is true for "service" discovery - I think SRV
still makes the best sense for that.
--
Cyrus Daboo
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf