-----Original Message-----
From: nfsv4-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:nfsv4-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Joe Touch
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Nico Williams
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-dns-srv-
namespace(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org;
tsv-ads(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org; nfsv4(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; tsv-
dir(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Keith Moore
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] TSVDIR review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-dns-srv-
namespace
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)
Interesting; do you have a reference for that one?
Spencer
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
_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf