On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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: I meant existence as in "how it's used". I don't see why Windows/AD/Samba/... can use SRV RRs the smart way while the rest of us must not. That would be silly. It's not our fault that RFC2782 is outdated. Nor is it our job to update it. But, let's see if we can change the direction of this thread (we're going in circles). Would you oppose an update to RFC2782 to standardize different SRV RRset _name_ conventions? If not, are you aware of any others who might? If you don't object, who should be responsible for making the update, keeping in mind that these alternative SRV RRset naming conventions shipped long ago? Nico -- _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf