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 outdated thinking).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/
_______________________________________________
JAdmin mailing list
JAdmin jabber.org
http:/
/mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jadmin
FAQ: http://ww
w.jabber.org/about/jadminfaq.shtml
_______________________________________________
|
