On Feb 14, 2002, 14:49 (-0500) Daniel Senie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess the basic question is whether having SRV records tied to a 1:1 > mapping of port numbers is desirable, or whether they should be mapped > instead to "services." You are about to redefine SRV. An SRV record connects a service at a domain to port and a server. Since http and https cannot share port, they cannot share SRV record. > There are cases, such as the present case of HTTP > and HTTPS where the "service" described as the "World Wide Web" uses more > than one port. To properly point to a particular host to provide service, > it doesn't seem useful to do this based on port number. > > So, the question is should there be a "web" SRV record that can be queried > and which clients use to answer the larger service question, instead of > finding out about the HTTP port or the HTTPS port. I'm sorry, I don't understand your solution. Could you describe how to use one SRV record for the web service to cover both plain http and https? Mats ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mats Dufberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
