Hi, Nico,
On 9/12/2011 10:49 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Joe Touch<touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
On 9/12/2011 8:03 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
You're locating the NFS service. You're using that to setup a domainroot.
The former is a DNS SRV issue. The latter is an endhost configuration issue.
No. We do not normally locate the NFS service. If you know a server,
that's the server hosting the NFS service. This is a distinct concept
to "NFS server". And the whole point is to avoid end host
configuration, if by end host you mean the *client*.
Either this is an nfs service or it isn't.
If it is, then it should be using _nfs._tcp.example.com, etc. If it
isn't, then:
a) a new service name is required
which then *requires*
b) a new port number be assigned
Microsoft's approach is to basically define a specific pattern to their
FQDNs - using nonstandard syntax - to indicate that the server is a MS
product:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc961719.aspx
I don't agree with this approach; most others who use SRV records use TXT
fields, and RFC 3088 provides a correct example of SRV use for LDAP.
I'm uninterested in saying no to plainly working and deployed
solutions out of dogmatic inflexibility. Update RFC2782 if you like.
The issue is that if this document wants to go outside the spec, *it*
needs to update RFC2782 - and survive the discussion that will incur.
If your claim is that we should ignore specs once we find any extant
exception, then there's simply no point in even proceeding with this
doc. There's no need for this spec. No need for any spec. Why do you
even participate in spec discussions then?
If it's time to go update RFC2782, well, let's, but let's not hold up
the rest of the world over it.
It's up to you if you want to start by redefining SRV records.
I'm unwilling to do that because I don't believe we have to.
I'm even less willing to use TXT RRs to duplicate SRV RR functionality.
SRV RRs define the port, weight, target, etc.
TXT RRs for the same name provide supplemental information. If you're
fond of extant implementations driving the argument, why won't you
consider the dozens of extant SRVs that define TXT fields and already
use them for exactly this purpose?
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf