On Sep 11, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > > On Sep 11, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > >> We've been discussing this in the Transport area lately. >> >> DNS SRVs are defined in RFC 2782 as I have described. Additional info is passed in TXT records for current DNS SRVs. >> >> I.e. what I have proposed is what is both current spec and current widespread practice. >> >> Before proposing a change (which would need to happen before we would use it in a new spec anyway), is there something the current syntax (and use of TXTs for additional info) cannot do that you want? > > Why use SRV records at all if you also need TXT records to convey part of the information needed by apps (and thus, have to do multiple queries for the same level of information)? Why not just encode all of the information in TXT records? The SRV records provide a standard way of mapping a service (as per the IANA ports and service names registry) on a specific transport to a hostname and port number. The TXT records are linked to the SRV records, and provide additional bootstrap info that the service does not provide in-band. If you're looking for a more generic database query system, you might consider using LDAP rather than the DNS. Joe _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf