> I can certainly see where it would be useful. However, I question your > comments in Section 9 of your draft: specifically that URI should be viewed > as a replacement for SRV. URI (may) make sense for "resource" discovery, but > I don't believe that is true for "service" discovery - I think SRV still > makes the best sense for that.
IMHO, that depends on the service. In RAI we have "LoST" and "HELD", both of which are HTTP(s) based services contacted through a URI. A "URI" RR-based solution for discovery of those would, I think, have been cleaner than the current U-NAPTR based methods. Ray -- Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET Senior Researcher, Nominet e: [email protected], t: +44 1865 332211 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
