> -----Original Message----- > From: nfsv4-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:nfsv4-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Joe Touch > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 3:31 PM > To: Nico Williams > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-dns-srv- > namespace@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tsv-ads@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; nfsv4@xxxxxxxx; tsv- > dir@xxxxxxxx; Keith Moore > Subject: Re: [nfsv4] TSVDIR review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-dns-srv- > namespace > > > > On 9/12/2011 2:43 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Joe Touch<touch@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> My claim is that: > >> > >> SRVs represent services as they are currently assigned by > >> IANA > >> > >> a new RR could be useful for things that aren't sufficiently > >> expressible in the IANA service/port registry > > > > Existence proofs show that this is not *actually* so. > > The existence proof is that many SRV names have defined TXT fields, > including the following: > ftp > sftp-ssh > ssh > telnet > http > nfs (already defines path to the mount point) Interesting; do you have a reference for that one? Spencer > qttp (quicktime) > webdav > > > It's only what RFC2782 was aiming for. > > > > Time has passed. That ship has sailed. > > Seems like that ship sails just fine. > > There are bigger issues with widescale SRV use, but the use of associated > TXT records isn't one of them as far as I've seen. > > Joe > > > > _______________________________________________ > nfsv4 mailing list > nfsv4@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf