On 13/01/2016 20:01, John Levine wrote:
I suppose, but doing it as _<service>._client._<proto> puts it in > the existing service namespace. It's not a huge difference, and it's
> been clear for a while that if we do Dave's registry, part of what >
it includes will be a list of the underscore names that are protocol >
labels. That currently includes _tcp _udp _sip _xmpp _ldap _http > _ocsp
so I suppose adding one more isn't awful, but it seems > needlessly kludgy.
When Dave and I last discussed that draft in any detail (back in
Orlando!) my proposal was that it should for SRV-based services the only
entries should be _tcp and _udp (or other L3 protocols), and that
anything that exists in the IANA port registry (with the prepended
underscore) would be a legal label to the left of that.
That would completely get away from the need to maintain the likes of
_sip, etc in the underscore registry.
Ray
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
