Re: TSV-DIR review of draft-daboo-srv-caldav-05

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Patrik Fältström writes:
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).

I feel bad about this proposal.

When I published the SRV draft, about a dozen people told me they'd wanted such a thing, for very diferent purposes, which made me feel that I was on the right track.

For this draft I have the opposite feeling. People are deploying HTTP redirects, pointers in known or computable locations, pointers in <link rel> tags, etc, etc. See http://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.php#submit_robots for an example. What I can NOT remember is someone posting "gee, I wish we had something like SRV but with URIs, that's what we really need".

So, I feel rather uncertain that your proposed RR meets a deeply felt need. It might. Or not. I worry that it'll either be unused, or shortly be found to be insufficient. Maybe more people would want an RR containing a URI template in which clients can insert a userid and whatnot?

And really, as Joe asks, how many SRV variants would we want?

Arnt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]