Re: On IETF policy for protocol registries

On 22 Jan 2016, at 17:17, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> And that would have been a perfectly reasonable approach if it had
> been made instead of SRV.
Yes, but SRV is as we all know much older.

> Or the IETF had published the RFC in 2005
> rather than 2015.
Well, the DNS RR Type was approved many many many years earlier.

We also did that as a test, and as you here also imply, people do not 
understand RRTypes registered according to the process. In reality an RFC is 
needed.

> Unfortunately, virtually every registrar supports SRV now but support
> for URI is nowhere near as common. To use URI with my provider, I have
> to run my own DNS.
Or use a DNS provider that do support "unknown" RR Types.

> The other problem is that URI supplements rather than replaces SRV.
Correct.

> And discovery is much cleaner if there is one mechanism regardless of
> the service in question rather than having to know the mechanism for
> the particular service.
>
> As Joe T. pointed out, there are also some services that have prefixed
> TXT records used in the discovery process and some that don't as well.
Yes, but that is even worse, I think, as you know.

   Patrik

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature