On Sep 11, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > > On Sep 11, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > >> We've been discussing this in the Transport area lately. >> >> DNS SRVs are defined in RFC 2782 as I have described. Additional info is >> passed in TXT records for current DNS SRVs. >> >> I.e. what I have proposed is what is both current spec and current >> widespread practice. >> >> Before proposing a change (which would need to happen before we would use it >> in a new spec anyway), is there something the current syntax (and use of >> TXTs for additional info) cannot do that you want? > > Why use SRV records at all if you also need TXT records to convey part of the > information needed by apps (and thus, have to do multiple queries for the > same level of information)? Why not just encode all of the information in > TXT records?
The SRV records provide a standard way of mapping a service (as per the IANA ports and service names registry) on a specific transport to a hostname and port number. The TXT records are linked to the SRV records, and provide additional bootstrap info that the service does not provide in-band. If you're looking for a more generic database query system, you might consider using LDAP rather than the DNS. Joe _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
