On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Daniel Pittman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:40, Nigel Kersten <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Daniel Pittman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 08:04, Ohad Levy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:16 AM, Daniel Pittman <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 15:02, Andrew Forgue < > [email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > On Dec 14, 6:15 pm, Daniel Pittman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 03:10, Andrew Forgue > >> >> >> <[email protected]> > > [...] > > >> > Does it make sense to add another lookup for the CA server? > >> > >> I think in the longer term it would make sense to do an SRV lookup for > >> each unique service that Puppet uses; SRV lookups (RFC2782) > >> distinguishes based on service and protocol. Which, I think, would be > >> vaguely in conflict with the CA requirement, since that uses the same > >> puppet service (as in, TCP port) for communication. > > > > It doesn't *necessarily* use the same port remember, it just does by > > default. > > Getting DNS-SD / SRV stuff working would require that it *never* used > the same port, which I suspect is not a winning strategy. :) > > Feel free to ignore my ignorant interjection then :) -- Nigel Kersten - Puppet Labs - http://www.puppetlabs.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
