Ned Freed wrote in the message archived at <http://www.IMC.ORG/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/msg05917.html>:
> ... > > But even this isn't really necessary to specify precedence among > protocols. The specification could say that pop/pops/imap/imaps > records should be considered as a group, and absent client > configuration to the contrary should be used in the order specified > by their individual priority fields. For example, an imaps record > with a higher priority than any imap record would indicate imaps > is preferred over imap. > > RFC 2782 appears to allow schemes like this. But whether it's worth > defining such a thing is another matter. My personal opinion is that > it's just a bit outside my comfort zone in terms of complexity, but if > others feel strongly that servers should be able to specify protocol > preferences this is a way to do with it with no additional DNS records > or supplementary protocols. Folks, please take a look at the draft Olafur Gudmundsson and I recently have posted to clarify RFC 2782 (and hence intended for PS), http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify-00 According to these clarifications (if approved), such specific rules, *if and only if unambiguously specified* would IMO well be possible. Absent such application-specific documentation, the standard SRV naming and usage rules apply. Cyrus Daboo's draft would likely be the proper place to incorporate such specific rules, if desired. Kind regards Alfred. -- +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: [email protected] | +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
