* Alfred: > My apologies for cross-posting, > but this is inherently a cross-wg and cross-area topic: > > The revised draft contains clarifications for DNS service discovery > using SRV RRs and suggests methods to deal with the restrictions > imposed by draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports. It is intended that both > drafts will eventually be published in a coordinated manner. > > > Abstract > > The DNS SRV record has been specified in RFC 2052 and RFC 2782 for > use in dynamic service discovery for a domain. These two RFCs did > not clearly specify an IANA registry for the names of the services > and their underlying protocols. This document clarifies RFC 2782 > regarding the formation and use of the Service Prefix in the owner > name of SRV records, based on the unified IANA registry for "Service > Names and Transport Protocol Port Numbers".
Wouldn't it be better to put that effort into a SRV successor which focuses on cryptographic binding and the introduction of (generic, cross-application) transports above TCP/UDP? Right now, we've got many protocols which can run over HTTP(S) and home-grown pseudo-transport layers, and with SRV records, it is not possible to figure out if HTTP is to be used or not. -- Florian Weimer <fwei...@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
