On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote:
> > > 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. Is Dave's registry proposal documented in written form anywhere? Some planned alignment with that (assuming it has consensus) seems like a good idea. -- Shumon Huque
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
