On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:52:17AM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
In that regard, it appears to be more like the single-service MX
record, which has never needed a weight.
If "make this as much like SRV as possible" is a motivation,
then I'd expect that to be written a little more clearly and
might expect Weight to be specified as "reserved for future
extension; set to zero in all cases". Or, if not, I expect its
use to be clearly explained. Perhaps that explanation could be
just a reference to SRV, but I doubt it.
A couple of years back I wrote (for my employer) a Python LDAP
iterator that fully implements the SRV record priority and weight
specification. I found that others looking over the code later
were surprised by the attention to detail. It seems that many
implementations don't even pay attention to SRV priorities, let
alone weights.
So perhaps you're right, in that the SRV priority+weight design is
likely over-engineered in general, and for this use-case in
particular. It seems likely that many implementations simply ignore
the full semantics.
--
Viktor.