On 24 jun 2010, at 20.26, Cyrus Daboo wrote: > I can certainly see where it would be useful. However, I question your comments in Section 9 of your draft: specifically that URI should be viewed as a replacement for SRV. URI (may) make sense for "resource" discovery, but I don't believe that is true for "service" discovery - I think SRV still makes the best sense for that [not in context of the caldav draft...] Hmm...you might be correct here. For example in the case of a URI RR that refer to a mailto URI that in turn (theoretically) should use SRV to know what port and hostname to use for the destination of the SMTP connection? So a URI might in some cases in turn result in the need for an SRV lookup? Is that your point? Patrik
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf