Hi, Nico,
On 9/12/2011 1:00 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Joe Touch<touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
On 9/12/2011 12:00 PM, Robert Thurlow wrote:
Joe Touch wrote:
We don't want to enumerate all NFS servers in a domain.
That's what SRV records do. If that's not what you want, you should consider
defining a new RR type.
No.... We don't want to enumerate *all* NFSv4 servers in a domain. We
want to enumerate all NFSv4 domain-root servers in a domain. Slight
difference.
I know what you *want* to do. But short of assigning another port number
for that capability and getting another service name, this simply isn't
a service in the IANA service/port numbers sense, so I'm not surprised
it doesn't uniquely map to SRV records.
Now, if we only ever intended to discovery domain-root NFSv4 servers,
then we could just follow RFC2782. But what if we want to add some
new role like domain-root, but not domain-root, for NFSv4 servers? I
suppose we could punt on this till then, but it seems unclean to do so
-- it's much cleaner to denote the role of the server ("domain root")
in the RRset name.
It's never clean to continually redefine the syntax of a structured
record (SRV). The better solution is to add new fields to the TXT
record, and filter on that. That's the point - the TXT record use with
SRV is intended for "all the stuff you might filter on or need for boot"
that isn't in the SRV record.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf