At 3:29 PM -0700 7/24/06, Dave Crocker wrote:
SRV "breaks" wildcard. Should we deprecate SRV?
It's not the SRV record that breaks wildcard.
Look at
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-11.txt,
section 4.5. (BTW, This document has concluded - as far as I am
concerned - AUTH48 and should be an RFC real soon now.)
In terms of DNS history, SRV is quite recent,
Proposed RFC appeared in February 2000, experimental in October 1996.
Things newer than experimental SRV: DNSSEC II, DNSSEC III, Dynamic
Update, Clarifications to the DNS, Bit Labels, EDNS0, DNS for NAT,
NAPTR, and so on. To "us" SRVs are not new.
about the specific tables of names that it is citing. This prompts me to
suspect that the SRV specification is really specification of a template, and
that particular uses of that template need their own specification, citing the
specific underscore names being covered.
That's true - the RFC on SRV really talks about a use case.
BTW - in searching for SRV's in the archives, I came across the
chair's message on proposed work items, including an examination of
the SRV framework. Is this discussion evidence that such work is
justified (to be in the charter)?
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar
Soccer/Futbol. IPv6. Both have lots of 1's and 0's and have a hard time
catching on in North America.
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
