To:
ed@alcpress.com
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Jim Reid <Jim.Reid@nominum.com>
Date:
Mon, 04 Feb 2002 01:31:00 -0800
In-Reply-To:
Message from ed@alcpress.com of "Sun, 03 Feb 2002 13:28:43 PST." <3C5D3B0B.31811.7EBD410E@localhost>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: SRV records - when?
>>>>> "ed" == ed <ed@alcpress.com> writes:
ed> Perhaps what's needed is a http-specific record type similar
ed> to MX records for email. I know this will be an unpopular
ed> suggestion, but it seems that web browser users and designers
ed> need things to be dumbed down before they'll pay attention.
Frankly, I don't see the point. There would appear to be little
significant difference between your proposed new record type and the
SRV record. Even if your new record got through IETF, you still have
*exactly* the same problem we have with SRV records right now. Browser
developers will have to implement support for them. They might as well
do the Right Thing and implement SRV records which would be more
useful in the long run.