Proposal for using NAPTR/URI records
nico at cryptonector.com
Wed Feb 25 15:04:02 EST 2015
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Nathaniel McCallum
<npmccallum at redhat.com> wrote:
>> The other thing is: NAPTR is way too complex a beast, and if URI RRs
>> will do the trick, then please stay away from NAPTR.
> By this, do you mean?
> 1. Look up SRV.
> 2. If SRV fails, look up URI.
> If no, then what?
> If yes, then please defined precisely what you do and do not mean by "fails."
I didn't say anything about failure.
Use URI RRs, but not NAPTR. That's my take.
SRV RRs don't fit well because of the lack of a URI scheme (could be
http: or https:, but hopefully just http:) and the lack of a local
part (which can be overcome by using the port number and a fixed local
part, though it will upset some people, and perhaps rightly so). If
SRV RRs are already in use for this use-case, so be it, but URI would
be more fitting for a standard. NAPTR seems a little overwrought for
this use case, and anyways, it's the tool I'd reach for last: when
nothing else will work.
More information about the krbdev