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). Now, IF the IETF consensus is that we must update RFC2782 in spite of the many SRV RR uses that exist which do not match the RFC2782 RRset naming convention, well, fine, we can do that -- it's not a big deal, only a small delay. But until then my position is that we do not have to do this. Nico -- Nico -- _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf