/no/ changes to the spec, except to correct the typo Bob Harold spotted. Correct?
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:23 AM, Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > > For completeness: > > Absent further discussion and agreement in the wg, I taking this > exchange as producing /no/ changes to the spec. > > d/ > > > On 7/24/2018 7:58 AM, John Levine wrote: > >> In article <9da145f4-df6a-4bfa-b3c9-56027b228...@iis.se> you write: >> >>> -=-=-=-=-=- >>> In table 2 on page 9, the draft refers to RFC 2782 for _dccp and _sctp >>> (SRV), but those “_node names” >>> are not even mentioned in the RFC. Are they defined elsewhere? >>> >> >> RFC 2782 says that SRV's are named with _proto where proto is is a >> protocol name. RFCs 3588 and 6733 say to do _sctp SRV lookups, but >> don't further define them, and only have 2782 as an informative >> reference. No RFC mentions _dccp. >> >> It seems to me that 2782 is the right reference for _sctp. For _dccp >> we've had arguments about whether 2782 says that a SRV can be named by >> any protocol so maybe we should put in every protocol in the IANA >> registry. That's a lot of dead protocols. A reasonable compromise >> would be to start the registry with the names that have some evidence >> of being used somewhere, so we could drop _dccp >> >> In the same table, the draft refers to RFC 7553 for a number of URI _node >>> names, but the references are quite >>> indirect. Could references to relevant IANA registries be added? >>> >> >> Since RFC 7553 is the place that says that the enumservice names turn >> into _node names, I think that's the right reference. >> > > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
