On 9/12/2011 2:43 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Joe Touch<touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
My claim is that:
SRVs represent services as they are currently assigned by IANA
a new RR could be useful for things that aren't sufficiently
expressible in the IANA service/port registry
Existence proofs show that this is not *actually* so.
The existence proof is that many SRV names have defined TXT fields,
including the following:
ftp
sftp-ssh
ssh
telnet
http
nfs (already defines path to the mount point)
qttp (quicktime)
webdav
> It's only what RFC2782 was aiming for.
Time has passed. That ship has sailed.
Seems like that ship sails just fine.
There are bigger issues with widescale SRV use, but the use of
associated TXT records isn't one of them as far as I've seen.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf