On 22 Jan 2016, at 17:17, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > And that would have been a perfectly reasonable approach if it had > been made instead of SRV. Yes, but SRV is as we all know much older. > Or the IETF had published the RFC in 2005 > rather than 2015. Well, the DNS RR Type was approved many many many years earlier. We also did that as a test, and as you here also imply, people do not understand RRTypes registered according to the process. In reality an RFC is needed. > Unfortunately, virtually every registrar supports SRV now but support > for URI is nowhere near as common. To use URI with my provider, I have > to run my own DNS. Or use a DNS provider that do support "unknown" RR Types. > The other problem is that URI supplements rather than replaces SRV. Correct. > And discovery is much cleaner if there is one mechanism regardless of > the service in question rather than having to know the mechanism for > the particular service. > > As Joe T. pointed out, there are also some services that have prefixed > TXT records used in the discovery process and some that don't as well. Yes, but that is even worse, I think, as you know. Patrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature