Subject: Re: DNS SRV Clarification sought

From: Greg Hudson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 14:08:35 -0500

On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 13:48, Paul Vixie wrote:
> here's the problem.  SRV is experimental.  2052 was "snuck through" the
> ietf process when iesg's attention was focused elsewhere, and they got
> Really Angry about it when they found out.

Your history seems to be omitting the part where we got RFC 2782
published as a proposed standard (with you as one of the authors).  That
one certainly wasn't snuck through the IESG; we got significant feedback
about the static weighting system, among other things.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:08:33 -0600

On 3/6/2004 12:48 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:

> iana should create a registry of service identifiers, by importing the
> BSD file "/etc/services" and then periodically amending it for new
> standards

Is that really feasible? Service definitions may require weighting values
and client-selection algorithms to be useful, all of which requires some
level of agreement among implementors.

If we start with a list of defaults and then update the list on-the-fly,
how does the client know which version of the list entry is in use for
those SRV RRs that they encounter?

The nice thing about the current model is that an entry in the list
connotes agreement among implementors, or at least carries a footnote.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

---

From: Greg Hudson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 14:08:35 -0500

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:08:33 -0600