Patrik Fältström writes:
On 17 jul 2010, at 21.39, Joe Touch wrote:
Are you suggesting a new RR instead of the SRV or in addition to the SRV?
The latter seems useful; the former begs the question of how many
SRV variants we would want.
A new RR that is a replacement for the SRV for the cases where one
need a URI and not only hostname+port.
Otherwise, same syntax and usage as SRV (i.e. prefix of the owner
decide the protocol and service etc).
It is therefore more a replacement for SRV than replacement for NAPTR
(that give back a list of services given a domain name).
I feel bad about this proposal.
When I published the SRV draft, about a dozen people told me they'd
wanted such a thing, for very diferent purposes, which made me feel
that I was on the right track.
For this draft I have the opposite feeling. People are deploying HTTP
redirects, pointers in known or computable locations, pointers in <link
rel> tags, etc, etc. See
http://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.php#submit_robots for an example. What
I can NOT remember is someone posting "gee, I wish we had something
like SRV but with URIs, that's what we really need".
So, I feel rather uncertain that your proposed RR meets a deeply felt
need. It might. Or not. I worry that it'll either be unused, or shortly
be found to be insufficient. Maybe more people would want an RR
containing a URI template in which clients can insert a userid and
whatnot?
And really, as Joe asks, how many SRV variants would we want?
Arnt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf