Re: draft-daboo-srv-email

[Tony Finch <dot@xxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, ned+ietf-smtp@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > I agree with Cyrus.  Even if the market has reached a workable compromise
> > for the time being by using well-known host names, it has done so at the
> > cost of flexibility which SRV records could provide.  I think it would be
> > very useful to document the naming conventions that will allow current
> > clients to find the servers, but I don't believe that's a reason to *not*
> > document a more robust and formal SRV record protocol as well in the hope
> > that clients and configurations will move to that.
>
> Exactly right IMO.

Thanks for all your arguments. I have been convinced. Perhaps I should be
less negative about the likelihood of deploying improvements...

> I also fear that an effort to do something more elaborate with XML and web
> servers and so on carries with it a very high liklihood of failure, and even if
> we manage to agree on something (probably at some distant point in the future),
> it will then fail to deploy.

Actually I'm less negative about this because it has clearer benefits. For
example it allows an operator to override an MUA's built-in preferences.
The big question is whether we can get the various MUA vendors to
co-operate instead of continuing to do their own thing.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@xxxxxxxx>  http://dotat.at/
GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS.
MODERATE OR GOOD.