On Sep 12, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Keith Moore <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Sep 12, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Joe Touch wrote: >> I think RFC 2782 inappropriately specified SRV RRs by defining both the >> label syntax and the RDATA syntax at the same time. > > I think we can all agree that RFC2782 is authoritative for the SRV RR > RDATA specification. It can be no other way. > > The RRset name, OTOH, we could easily agree that RFC2782 is > authoritative as to the construction of the RRset name for one use of > SRV RRs. I don't see how RFC2782 can constrain forevermore the SRV > RRset names, but quite clearly there's not much we could or should do > to change the SRV RR RDATA specification (at most we could change the > interpretation of some of the RDATA fields in some circumstances, but > not the RDATA format itself). > > Now, IF the IETF consensus is that we must update RFC2782 in spite of > the many SRV RR uses that exist which do not match the RFC2782 RRset > naming convention, well, fine, we can do that -- it's not a big deal, > only a small delay. But until then my position is that we do not have > to do this.
+1 Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
