On Feb 14, 2002, 17:02 (-0500) Daniel Senie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The goal is to get an a mapping to a machine that can handle a service. SRV > as defined in RFC2782 returns both address and port number, where for what > I was thinking about, address alone would have been better. It's too bad > the address and port number were tied together. If we had it to do again, > I'd argue for one record pointing at the proper host, and separate query to > ask what port to use on that host for a particular protocol if needed. I don't see the point of having to ask twice. I don't see the problem of having the port in the data. On the contrary, by having port number, it is more flexible. > Given the present definition of SRV, the mechanism will not be able to > support services which employ multiple ports, or applications (e.g. web > browsers) will have to make assumptions (i.e. look up SRV for http, and > assume port 443 for the same host for https) or else sites will not > function correctly. You can handle it by having more than one SRV record. Mats ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mats Dufberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
