On 9/12/2011 1:17 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Joe Touch<touch@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9/12/2011 1:00 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Joe Touch<touch@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9/12/2011 12:00 PM, Robert Thurlow wrote:
No.... We don't want to enumerate *all* NFSv4 servers in a domain. We
want to enumerate all NFSv4 domain-root servers in a domain. Slight
difference.
I know what you *want* to do. But short of assigning another port number for
that capability and getting another service name, this simply isn't a
service in the IANA service/port numbers sense, so I'm not surprised it
doesn't uniquely map to SRV records.
I don't think that's the correct way to go about this. I see nothing
wrong with what's proposed. I say we let the LC run and see where we
stand on consensus at the end. If we end up on the rough side of
consensus, so be it -- in that case then I think we'd want to
undertake an update of RFC2782, rather than bend to it. We want to do
what's right.
I believe have made my position on behalf of the TSVDIR clear.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf