It should be pointed out that the Autodiscover subsystem of Microsoft
Office uses SRV in a very *degenerate* way. It ignores all fields other
than target. In my testing, I believe I also proved that it doesn't fail
over if presented multiple SRV RRs in a response. So, basically it's a
one-to-one
From my high tech gadget
> On Nov 8, 2018, at 06:30, Ray Bellis wrote:
>
>> On 08/11/2018 04:13, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>>
>> I can't stress this enough - when you see ALIAS records at zone cuts
>> that point to a database server, already, then we've missed the
>> "server specific" ball.
>
>
On 11/07/2018 02:13 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Tony says this:
>
> " It isn't a judgment about what's good, but an observation about what
> is done."
>
> I can't stress this enough - when you see ALIAS records at zone cuts
> that point to a database server,
> already, then we've missed the
On 08/11/2018 04:13, Tim Wicinski wrote:
I can't stress this enough - when you see ALIAS records at zone cuts
that point to a database server, already, then we've missed the
"server specific" ball.
This sounds like it ought to be a very unusual configuration.
Even with a zone cut, couldn't
Tony says this:
" It isn't a judgment about what's good, but an observation about what is
done."
I can't stress this enough - when you see ALIAS records at zone cuts that
point to a database server,
already, then we've missed the "server specific" ball.
And can someone show a significant number
This is such a salient point, and always draws me back towards a desire
for accompanying questions. They wouldn't directly address exactly the
issue handled by ANAME (the addresses of one host corresponding to those
of a distinct [probably out-of-bailiwick] name), but might make it
moot—or at
On 11/6/18 6:28 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
But thinking about the discussions from the weekend and yesterday, it
occurs to me that it might make sense to simplify ANAME even further:
* Make all authoritative processing optional, whether UPDATE style or
dynamic on-demand.
* The sibling
Ray Bellis wrote:
> On 07/11/2018 00:28, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> >* General purpose (also works for ssh, databases, etc) vs HTTP-specific
>
> I just wanted to address this particular point, again.
>
> IMHO, any record that doesn't support a service selector isn't doing its job
> properly.
Yes.
p.s. anyone thinking a new _generic_ resource record is required, please
(re)read RFC 5507.
HTTP started off with a service identifying prefix, but it was merely by
convention, and it was "www."
This whole mess started because folks wanted to get rid of that service
identifier, but a)
On 07/11/2018 00:28, Tony Finch wrote:
* General purpose (also works for ssh, databases, etc) vs HTTP-specific
I just wanted to address this particular point, again.
IMHO, any record that doesn't support a service selector isn't doing its
job properly.
You _have_ to be able to say
10 matches
Mail list logo
