On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 04:52:48PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 04:47:17PM +0100, > Sebastian Kiesel <[email protected]> wrote > a message of 50 lines which said: > > > > Earlier versions explicitly had a reference to RFC 3958, explaining > > > that ALTO discovery requires an URI as output. > > > > this is still in section 1, third paragraph of our draft. > > No, it is not, the reference to S-NAPTR (RFC 3958) is not > present. (There is a reference to RFC 3958 later but for a differant > reason.)
our draft states that we have to yield and deliver an URI. The U-NAPTR spec, RFC 4848 which is cited, has an introduction section with rationale why S-NAPTR is not sufficient for all applications. let me cite from that: This U-NAPTR is effectively a modest extension to S-NAPTR, to accommodate the use of URIs as targets, without allowing the full range of possible regular expressions in NAPTR records. > BTW, to return a URI, there is also draft-faltstrom-uri we have all we need in RFCs, so why build on drafts that might still be subject to change? Sebastian _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
