On 9/12/2011 1:23 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Keith Moore<moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 12, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
I think RFC 2782 inappropriately specified SRV RRs by defining both the label syntax and the RDATA syntax at the same time.
I think we can all agree that RFC2782 is authoritative for the SRV RR
RDATA specification. It can be no other way.
The RRset name, OTOH, we could easily agree that RFC2782 is
authoritative as to the construction of the RRset name for one use of
SRV RRs. I don't see how RFC2782 can constrain forevermore the SRV
RRset names, but quite clearly there's not much we could or should do
to change the SRV RR RDATA specification (at most we could change the
interpretation of some of the RDATA fields in some circumstances, but
not the RDATA format itself).
The original DNS spec declared the valid RRset syntax until RFC 2782
changed it for that RR type.
*That* is the precedent.
If you want another RRset syntax, then you need another RR type IMO.
That's the only way to ensure that new RRset syntaxes (or RDATA
syntaxes) will work in all implementations anyway.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf