On Jul 23, 2011, at 5:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > In message <4E28A51F.4020704@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bruce Atherton writes: >> >> I admit that I find it a little troubling to use MUST for the client to >> follow this procedure as there is a burden on implementers to understand >> how to code this since it isn't done by default in the standard >> libraries the way that ordinary name resolution is. Making it the >> recognized best practice with a SHOULD would be preferable all else >> being equal. > > No. MUST is what is needed. It's a new protocol. Do what's best from > day one. Sort of agree. If use of SRV for this protocol is really appropriate (which I doubt, but I haven't looked at it closely) then the protocol specification should say "MUST use SRV". If use of SRV for this protocol is not appropriate, or if it's not clear that it's appropriate, then the specification should probably say "MUST NOT use SRV". Either way, provide clear direction to implementors and don't leave the decision as to whether to use SRV up to the implementation. That would create different behaviors in different implementations, which is clearly not desirable. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf