Re: draft-daboo-srv-email

[John C Klensin <john+smtp@xxxxxxx>]

Agree on both issues -- very convincing arguments for going
ahead with SRV, but, as we find ourselves moving back into a
world in which it is common for people to use multiple devices
to access the same mailbox, I think it would be worth the
investment to again see if we can make progress on
properly-secured, client-device-independent, portable full
configuration information.

   john


--On Friday, January 08, 2010 14:17 +0000 Tony Finch
<dot@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 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.