Subject: [dnsext] URL friendly use of SRV RR

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:57:15 +0900

How about this idea?

The problem of SRV is that it is *NOT* URL friendly that web people
should have no idea on how to use it.

While SRV is designed following the syntax of IP as:

	_Service._Proto.Name TTL Class SRV Priority Weight Port Target

most applications know <Service> and <Proto> by number from
the beginning that there is no room to convert them to ASCII
strings.

The only notable exception, of course, is when URLs are used.
However, as the syntax of Internet URLs is:

	<scheme>://<user>:<password>@<host>:<port>/<url-path>

applications have no information on the ASCII representation of
Proto.

So, SRV should be used as:

	_Scheme.Name TTL Class SRV Priority Weight Proto Port Target

where Weight and Proto are 8 bit quantities to make the RR
format compatible to todays.

Then, if we recommend web people try SRV when "Name" is not
resolved to addresses, they should be happy to use it.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:16:39 -0700

Ohta-san,

I do not think I understand the proposal.  Some clarifying
questions below:

>        _Scheme.Name TTL Class SRV Priority Weight Proto Port Target

So we would create a new RR like SRV which changed the syntax from
_Service._Proto.Name to _Scheme.Name?  This would allow the DNS
to answer the question:  what target(s) are available for scheme imap
at Name?

> resolved to addresses, they should be happy to use it.
So the logic would be first try to find an A or AAAA record looking up
the host portion of a URL, then look for this SRVbis?

regards,

Ted Hardie

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:40:01 +0200

Ohta-san,

Is it the URI RR-Type that I wrote about in a draft (but never finished) that you are looking for?

http://stupid.domain.name/ietf/draft-faltstrom-uri-04.txt

I am, and I know Olaf is, happy to push this.

What do other people say?

   Patrik