On 28 Mar 2017, at 23:27, Dave Lawrence wrote: > Peter van Dijk writes: >> Please note that neither draft handles the use case of also passing the >> port number, which in a world of growing CGN deployment, may soon prove >> quite important. > > I agree that neither handles it explicitly. Ray's singular use case > doesn't really need it, and our draft can handle ports through the DNS > address family mechanism if needed, albeit less compactly that could > be otherwise envisioned. If this were something that others think > should somehow be made explicit via some other mechanism, I could see > incorporating that.
How would you do it in the DNS address family? Kind regards, -- Peter van Dijk PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/ _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
