On Jul 23, 2011, at 5:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <4E28A51F(_dot_)4020704(_at_)callenish(_dot_)com>, Bruce Atherton
writes:
I admit that I find it a little troubling to use MUST for the client to
follow this procedure as there is a burden on implementers to understand
how to code this since it isn't done by default in the standard
libraries the way that ordinary name resolution is. Making it the
recognized best practice with a SHOULD would be preferable all else
being equal.
No. MUST is what is needed. It's a new protocol. Do what's best from
day one.
Sort of agree. If use of SRV for this protocol is really appropriate (which I
doubt, but I haven't looked at it closely) then the protocol specification
should say "MUST use SRV".
If use of SRV for this protocol is not appropriate, or if it's not clear that
it's appropriate, then the specification should probably say "MUST NOT use
SRV".
Either way, provide clear direction to implementors and don't leave the
decision as to whether to use SRV up to the implementation. That would create
different behaviors in different implementations, which is clearly not
desirable.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf