2011/7/21 David Endicott <dendicott(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>:
I am strongly opposed to any MUST definition for any type of URL resolution.
SIP and XMPP mandate (MUST) a resolution mechanism based on NAPTR, SRV
and A/AAAA records. Are they also wrong? do you also oppose to the DNS
MX resolution (as mandatory) for a mailto: URI? Do you imagine that a
mail server admin could not assume that SMTP clients would always use
MX resolution as the first choice? annoying that you say that, sorry.
I'm ok with inheriting / mimicking HTTP. Since it is intended to live in
the same universe as HTTP, I'm ok with it sharing mechanisms / limitations.
Yes, I assume many people in the HTTP warden is fine with this. That
is the problem: forcing a *new* protocol to inherit ugly limitations
just because "people is used to them". I don't understand how you can
prefer to ignore cool NEW solutions/mechanisms. This should not be a
valid argument in a new protocol design.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(_at_)aliax(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf