Re: Implement SRV DNS

Greg Hudson wrote:

> But their use of SRV records has nothing to do with any sin they might
> have committed in this area. A bogus SRV lookup consumes no more
> resources than a bogus A lookup. I can understand the temptation to
> criticize Microsoft for their sins, but it really does derail the
> discussion.

It was meant as an aside; he was referring to Microsoft's usage of SRV as
evidence of SRV's general utility. I was just suggesting that it isn't a
particularly good example. Your two (SIP and non-Microsoft Kerberos) are better
examples. I'm sorry I let my biases show. ;)

> The ultimate output of a SRV resolution is the same as the output of an
> A resolution: a list of IP addresses. (In the SRV case the order of
> those addresses is well-defined, while in the A case it is not, but from
> the application's point of view that doesn't matter.) It would be no
> worse to try only the first address we see from the SRV lookup than it
> is to try only the first address we see from the A lookup.

With the proviso that SRV queries return multiple values (Priority, Weight,
Port, and Target) in each answer, whereas A queries return only a list of
addresses. A quick reading of RFC2782 seems to suggest that the client should
perform the sorting by Priority/Weight (the server doesn't apparently have to
return the records in any given order). This does complicate the client
interface for (I would argue) very little benefit.

John

-- 
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard
Suite H
Lanham, MD  20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5748
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org