On 19 jul 2010, at 17.34, Joe Touch wrote: >> No, the other way around. You, in a protocol, use either srv or uri >> depending on wether you need more than hostname and port or a uri. > > The point of SRVs is to provide a single way to find a service. For me, there should be a single way of finding a service, given the service you use. I.e. we already have (as I listed in a separate message) several ways of finding a service. Too many I claim. And it might get worse if we do not take care of this. I am not nervous over having multiple ways of finding a service, as long as one know that "for email, you do like this", or "for ssh, you do like this". > When additional information is needed, it ought to be in an associated record (TXT or maybe a special URI one), but the host/port ought to remain in the SRV. I am not happy about such solutions as they require multiple lookups in DNS. And if one is not very careful the two records might have overlapping and therefore conflicting information in them. > We can discuss this further next week. Yes please. > Note that I consider addressing this important but not a show-stopper on this doc. Agree. If whatever IETF comes up with will be A Very Successful Mechanism, then this caldav work and other protocols can migrate over to the New And Improved way of doing things. > The only showstopper was the "alias" issue (i.e., that, IMO, the names need to be registered in the informal SRV registry, and that IANA ports aliases are not appropriate as a stop-gap until that registry is integrated as per the iana-ports doc). Agree. The discussion about where to register names used for example for SRV has been going on since SRV RR was defined... Patrik _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf