On 17 jul 2010, at 21.39, Joe Touch wrote: > Are you suggesting a new RR instead of the SRV or in addition to the SRV? > > The latter seems useful; the former begs the question of how many SRV variants we would want. A new RR that is a replacement for the SRV for the cases where one need a URI and not only hostname+port. Otherwise, same syntax and usage as SRV (i.e. prefix of the owner decide the protocol and service etc). It is therefore more a replacement for SRV than replacement for NAPTR (that give back a list of services given a domain name). See draft-faltstrom-uri Patrik > Joe > > On 7/17/2010 12:33 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> On 17 jul 2010, at 21.27, Joe Touch wrote: >> >>> The appropriate solution for a port discovered via SRV records is to use TXT records. >> >> And, for the ones that have not followed the whole history of this last call, my view is that a new RR type is needed, and I propose a URI resource record that as RDATA have the full URI to the resource in question. >> >> Patrik >>
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf