On 7/18/2010 12:14 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
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).
That seems to means you use one of two different RRs, depending on the
response.
I don't see that as a step forward.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf