On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Sep 12, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
I think RFC 2782 inappropriately specified SRV RRs by defining both the label
syntax and the RDATA syntax at the same time.
I think we can all agree that RFC2782 is authoritative for the SRV RR
RDATA specification. It can be no other way.
The RRset name, OTOH, we could easily agree that RFC2782 is
authoritative as to the construction of the RRset name for one use of
SRV RRs. I don't see how RFC2782 can constrain forevermore the SRV
RRset names, but quite clearly there's not much we could or should do
to change the SRV RR RDATA specification (at most we could change the
interpretation of some of the RDATA fields in some circumstances, but
not the RDATA format itself).
Now, IF the IETF consensus is that we must update RFC2782 in spite of
the many SRV RR uses that exist which do not match the RFC2782 RRset
naming convention, well, fine, we can do that -- it's not a big deal,
only a small delay. But until then my position is that we do not have
to do this.
Nico
--
Nico
--
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf