In message <85250.1346959...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes: > --==_Exmh_1346959671_1993P > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:14:58 -0400, Andrew Sullivan said: > > > Despite my scepticism of the overall project, I find the above claim a > > little hard to accept. RFC 2052, which defined SRV in an > > experiment, came out in 1996. SRV was moved to the standards track in > > 2000. I've never heard an argument why it won't work, and we know > > that SRV records are sometimes in use. Why couldn't that mechanism be > > used more widely? > > My PS3 may want to talk to the world, but I have no control over Comcast's > DNS.
What point are you trying to make? Comcast's servers support SRV as do all general purpose name servers. For HTTP at least you need to be backwards compatible so there is no reason not to add SRV support. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 > > iQIVAwUBUEj5NwdmEQWDXROgAQL/fRAAjHmAtVBMjQAybs2TWrzWMcE6e9k6A7Av > LvOXJAS1leKr0tyg0lG4+IwuMCN5bV3+V8F7+bWAfQFSBIj9aH5ymSuxdO/LJVoj > TdPRSRzTcPCL0mmIB5LbBdrDgi/PcruLdGDgOiLiLPhUkXnRJ+OmzR2WmAh4jgOz > dVLb0ugujqbmqm7tzgxeiC0yzF9EiL3RQAZwzZI9Tcbnh0rELMHWBhgGeIO5KbA9 > 4iCh79MkrPXr4uONVQrCmbNBuqcziGIekKDGCpSUqwynzbc7NK00+Xhhkz2inNOn > m7v73JFKzLd3AAjBenv3Yqz9hIwUGT4D9kW6Kof5Ah5SmzLY1ZOKpi+08M6i6SS/ > I54neNmQ7lLuO9p7EsGpRTfUN1MOMEYXo8yOFTNQI7FDWCXNhWz/MjE3wxmXQYeA > jBd8EE7m0QGuM6l/AhaS9BRXdZUXn8KK5E4N5YubJonLIuTzkTXuHmhFOB3Khlrl > rHfl84sf8TdeDuxlJZs4PLdfRJooknNjSqLYfyfH0UeK3mSjlY3rpjcAZbSZsMdy > vUDO0hU1C6FNFCXdkwRVZUtHxFX+l1sOtk76bt4s7NiWhwwGxwrykvk66qPa3YsH > nyIWS7SsX245hy7dayKMKpYIByaAO6E7uVWzhgOobRMe3omP911BE30D2KYLXFvn > wVqujobWuC4= > =o0nz > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --==_Exmh_1346959671_1993P-- > > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
