All,
Due to a mistake from my side, the new version I have been hacking in based on
comments coming back during the still open last call was posted the other day.
I am sorry for that and my apologies for people being confused.
It was my intention "only" to describe here what I have found so far in
comments, so let me summarize in no specific order:
- It is confusing to have a full section called "examples" and then only have
one example.
- The registries that existed when the draft was first posted was (only) the
ENUM registry, while now we also have a registry for SRV prefixes, and this
draft can and should reference both
- The example(s) given should because the draft reference a registry use actual
values that are registered.
- As no web browser have implemented lookup for the URI RRType (as far as I
know), the example should not be using "homepage" as an example, but something
else
- Minor clarifications that mostly are editorial
Some of these, but not all, are already implemented in the prematurely posted
version -11 which should not have been posted.
Once again, my apologies. Thanks to Eliot, Mark, Suzanne and Pete for helping
me.
Patrik
On 29 jan 2015, at 08:05, Patrik Fältström <paf(_at_)netnod(_dot_)se> wrote:
On 29 jan 2015, at 07:59, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi Patrik,
On this one point:
On 1/28/15 9:46 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
The RRType is registered and can not be changed.
That said, what can be referred to is a "better" registry for services.
IETF do not have a registry for services for SRV. If IETF did, then I would
have referenced that registry. I think it is "stupid" to create a new
registry.
Stupid or not, it exists. Go to [1] and select "Service name only".
RFC 6335 updated RFC 2782 on this point[2].
Ok, I have been sleeping by the wheel!
Mea culpa.
Let me come back on this.
Patrik
Eliot
[1] http://www.iana.org/form/ports-services
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6335
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail