Subject: Re: DNS SRV question (was Re: please post updated draft)

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 17:48:34 -0700

a lot of traffic over one draft on our full plate.  could someone sum up the
'discussion' in a somewhat balanced manner?

randy

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:32:29 +0200

>'discussion' in a somewhat balanced manner?

I can hardly be called balanced, but....

- Everyone agrees that this document needs to go forward.
- No technical changes to the record format have been proposed.
- People disagree about whether the warnings and SHOULD NOTs currently in the
   document are too strong, too weak, or exactly right.
- There are problems with defining how to use SRV for locally-defined
   services.
- I believe Paul Vixie holds the editor token, and Keith Moore holds the
   IESG token. If those 2 agree that it can go forward, we're done.

Is that a rough summary?

                           Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

---

From: Paul A Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:52:10 -0700

>    IESG token. If those 2 agree that it can go forward, we're done.

levon has the editing token.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:42:55 -0400

>    IESG token. If those 2 agree that it can go forward, we're done.

I have it on good authority that moving the applicability paragraph up
to the introduction (i.e., early in the document instead of in the
middle) takes care of Keith's last issue (Levon's earlier edits took
care of everything else).

Moving the paragraph takes some minor wordsmithing to change with "as
described above" into a forward reference.

With that change to the existing document, I believe it will be
approved by the IESG.

Thomas

---

From: David Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 01:20:56 -0400

> - There are problems with defining how to use SRV for locally-defined

Yes.  I don't think addressing these problems would be difficult.  In
fact, the problems can be eliminated by making a small change to the
the "Service" paragraph in the "The format of the SRV RR" section:

 Service
    The symbolic name of the desired service, as defined in Assigned
    Numbers [STD 2] or locally.

+   Care MUST be taken when using locally defined symbolic service
+   names to avoid possible collision with a name assigned in Assigned
+   Numbers [STD 2].  It is suggested that all locally defined service
+   identifiers begin with the string "x-" (x, hyphen), in order to
+   reduce the possibility of name collision.

    An underscore (_) is prepended to the service identifier to avoid
    collisions with DNS labels that occur in nature.

I know there is a lot of pressure to finalize this and get it
approved, but please - this change is very minor and will greatly
simplify using SRV in new and experimental protocols.

David

-- 
   David Shaw  |  [email-masked]  |  WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
      We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson