In article <cahw9_ikrxsr9ufbudhhk7j7ursxv3kenz90ltq+why1myba...@mail.gmail.com> you write: >So, there were a few documents where I was not able to quickly figure out >which of the classes it should be placed in.
Honestly, some of these don't look updated to me. The clues are in the table in attrleaf-14 >RFC6121 -- Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant >Messaging and Presence >This updates RFC3921 and explicitly recommends against SRV. >"Interoperability Note: RFC 3921 specified how to use the _im._xmpp and >_pres._xmpp SRV records [IMP-SRV] as a fallback method for discovering >whether a remote instant messaging and presence service communicates via >XMPP. Because those SRV records have not been widely deployed, this >document no longer specifies their use, and new implementations are not >encouraged." >Should this be in this list? RFC 3861 implies the _xmpp protocol tag for SRV, 3921 defines it, 6121 says not to use it but it already exists so it's in the registry. I don't see anything updated or to update. >I couldn't figure out RFC3404, and RFC6011. >Clue appreciated. > >RFC3404 -- Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Four: The >Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Resolution Application >Perhaps SRV? But it doesn't really seem to be underscore scoped... I believe that all SRV records are supposed to have _names and the examples in 3404 without them are wrong. An erratum might be appropriate but I don't see anything to update. >RFC6011 -- Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration >I got confused here -- I cannot really see the underscore names here as >anything other than a target name. Me neither. I wonder if some of these are left over cruft from earlier revisions that included service names. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
