I'm also sorry for not commenting earlier in thread. My point was informational, and not an issue. However, what you describe below seems appropriate. Eliot On 2/23/15 2:04 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > All, > > > Due to a mistake from my side, the new version I have been hacking in based on comments coming back during the still open last call was posted the other day. I am sorry for that and my apologies for people being confused. > > It was my intention "only" to describe here what I have found so far in comments, so let me summarize in no specific order: > > - It is confusing to have a full section called "examples" and then only have one example. > > - The registries that existed when the draft was first posted was (only) the ENUM registry, while now we also have a registry for SRV prefixes, and this draft can and should reference both > > - The example(s) given should because the draft reference a registry use actual values that are registered. > > - As no web browser have implemented lookup for the URI RRType (as far as I know), the example should not be using "homepage" as an example, but something else > > - Minor clarifications that mostly are editorial > > Some of these, but not all, are already implemented in the prematurely posted version -11 which should not have been posted. > > Once again, my apologies. Thanks to Eliot, Mark, Suzanne and Pete for helping me. > > Patrik > >> On 29 jan 2015, at 08:05, Patrik Fältström <paf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> On 29 jan 2015, at 07:59, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Patrik, >>> >>> On this one point: >>> >>> >>>> On 1/28/15 9:46 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >>>> >>>> The RRType is registered and can not be changed. >>>> >>>> That said, what can be referred to is a "better" registry for services. IETF do not have a registry for services for SRV. If IETF did, then I would have referenced that registry. I think it is "stupid" to create a new registry. >>> Stupid or not, it exists. Go to [1] and select "Service name only". >>> RFC 6335 updated RFC 2782 on this point[2]. >> Ok, I have been sleeping by the wheel! >> >> Mea culpa. >> >> Let me come back on this. >> >> Patrik >> >>> Eliot >>> >>> [1] http://www.iana.org/form/ports-services >>> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6335 >>>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature