[jadmin] Wildcard and SRV records (too much subdomains)

[Matthias Wimmer]

Hi Peter!


Peter Saint-Andre schrieb:
>> I would support having a MUST for SRV records in RFC3920bis, so any
>> server supporting RFC3920bis would have to have the SRV records. But
>> maybe we should keep a SHOULD for supporting the A fallback for
>> resolving external servers in RFC3920bis for now for RFC3920
>> compatibility.
> 
> When you say "server" do you mean implementation or deployment? IIRC,
> SRV support is required for server implementations in RFC 3920, but in
> general specs don't talk about requirements for deployment since that's
> out of scope (we can test software for compliance with a spec, but not a
> deployment -- though in the age of software as a service, that may be
> outdated thinking).

You are right. I talked about deployments and we should not make
requirements on things we cannot control.

But still we could make the fallback to A a SHOULD instead of a MUST.
This would be at least a small step in the right direction. And we could
encourage implementations to check for the existence of the SRV record
of the local server on startup. (But that's nothing we should do in a RFC.)


Matthias

-- 
Matthias Wimmer      Fon +49-700 77 00 77 70
Züricher Str. 243    Fax +49-89 95 89 91 56
81476 München        http://ma.tthias.eu/