On 9/12/2011 11:46 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Sep 12, 2011, at 2:31 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
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.
Well, in a pedantic sense I'm sure that's true. But it doesn't need to
update RFC2782 as it pertains to anything but the ability to locate a
certain subset of NFS-based services. It certainly doesn't have to
change how SRV works with respect to other protocols.
That's trivially true for all protocol variations - they're all as local
as you define them.
But again if that's your goal - a ships-in-the-night variant - you
should consider doing declaring a new RR type. That's the point of the
RR type - to indicate when the interpretation of an RR changes.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf