To:
Mark.Andrews@isc.org
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se, Thor Kottelin <thor@anta.net>
From:
Peter Koch <pk@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
Date:
Sat, 09 Feb 2002 17:12:06 +0100
In-reply-to:
Your message of "Sat, 09 Feb 2002 12:48:14 +1100." <200202090148.g191mEs09924@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: SRV records - when?
Hi Mark, > draft-andrews-http-srv-01.txt is available nice draft. Wonder what the impact on larger name servers would look like, especially during transition. In section 2 you give this example (considered dnsop relevant): Non-default port specified: URI: http://example.com:8080/ SRV RR: _http._tcp.example.com. SRV 10 1 80 host2.example.com. CNAME RR: example.com. CNAME host1.example.com. A RRs: host1.example.com. A 10.0.0.1 host2.example.com. AAAA 1080::8:800:200C:417A Connect to: 10.0.0.1 port 8080 While formally "example.com" need not be the name of a zone, in real life it is and that's the expectation of the average DNS user, even emphasized by the phrase "you are example.com" introducing the example in section 3. So, this CNAME RR will be in clear conflict with SOA/NS RRs, a situation you correctly declare "illegal" in an earlier paragraph. Unfortunately cases like this happen "out there" every day and render the zone unusable. So I'd rather see a warning here - or the CNAME RR altered, since it's not necessary in this constellation. Instead it's worth another example showing explicitly why SRV based solutions work where CNAME won't. While at it: I'd probably mention that the SRV processing will have no influence on what's sent in the http "Host:" header. Finally, what is the length of a "session"? If it is predetermined by the TTL (actually which? the SRV's or the A/AAAA RRs'?), would this imply restrictions on how to set the TTL values? -Peter