On May 20, 2014, at 2:29 AM, Masataka Ohta <mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > I have a proposal in: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-urlsrv-00 > on the problems.
Adding the port numbers is a surprising choice. Why not just do something like this: _port._proto._tcp.name.? IOW, if a port is specified in the URL, it's used to find the SRV record. If there is no SRV record that matches that port, give up. That matches the current meaning of ports in URLs: http://www.netbsd.org:90/ is not in any sense equivalent to http://www.netbsd.org/ and therefore shouldn't result in the same query. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
