Cyrus Daboo <[email protected]> writes: > I disagree. Just because clients have been forced to do things using > guesswork up to now does not mean we should leave them and any new > clients to do the same thing. I have heard from at least one developer > who is working on implementing SRV support for Thunderbird.
> The SRV solution is simple to implement - most OS network libraries now > provide simple access to SRV record results. Site and domain admins > these days are much more comfortable with setting up SRV (required for > services like XMPP). So I think SRV represents a simple solution that > can be adopted in a reasonable timeframe. I agree with Cyrus. Even if the market has reached a workable compromise for the time being by using well-known host names, it has done so at the cost of flexibility which SRV records could provide. I think it would be very useful to document the naming conventions that will allow current clients to find the servers, but I don't believe that's a reason to *not* document a more robust and formal SRV record protocol as well in the hope that clients and configurations will move to that. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
