2011/7/21 David Endicott <dendicott@xxxxxxxxx>: > I am strongly opposed to any MUST definition for any type of URL resolution. SIP and XMPP mandate (MUST) a resolution mechanism based on NAPTR, SRV and A/AAAA records. Are they also wrong? do you also oppose to the DNS MX resolution (as mandatory) for a mailto: URI? Do you imagine that a mail server admin could not assume that SMTP clients would always use MX resolution as the first choice? annoying that you say that, sorry. > I'm ok with inheriting / mimicking HTTP. Since it is intended to live in > the same universe as HTTP, I'm ok with it sharing mechanisms / limitations. Yes, I assume many people in the HTTP warden is fine with this. That is the problem: forcing a *new* protocol to inherit ugly limitations just because "people is used to them". I don't understand how you can prefer to ignore cool NEW solutions/mechanisms. This should not be a valid argument in a new protocol design. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@xxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf