Re: [apps-discuss] Looking at Webfinger

I think it is not the problem of the clients. Any decent scripting
language has the ability to query SRV records in DNS.

It is the problem of the DNS service provider, which always have GUI
for A and CNAME records but not necessarily TXT or SRV records.

Having said that, have we done the reality check on the above claim
that those providers do not support them? Quick check reveals the
following about top domain registrar's support SRV records (market
share is from http://collegefallout.com/list-of-top-10-domain-name-registrars/
which may not be correct) :

- Regstrar Name (market share) Support of SRV record

- GoDaddy (31%)YES
- enom.com (8.5%) YES
- TuCows (6.6%) ???
- NetworkSolutions (5.4%) YES
- Schlund+Partner (4.3%) NO
- melbourneit (3.6%) NO
- Wild West Domains (2.8%) YES
- moniker.com (2.4%) ???
- ResellerClub (2.2%) YES
- REGISTER.com (2.0%) YES

It is actually better than I thought. The world may be changing...

Nat

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:00 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
> I agree that doing it via DNS would be the proper way.
>
> The reality is that not all clients can easily access DNS directly.  Doing anything more than a http get reduces adoption.
>
> Not all DNS providers support srv records.  I think your draft on DNS records has expired, and I know of no support for it.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-faltstrom-uri-06
>
> Something like DNS records would be the answer, I just don't think protocols like Webfinger are likely to wait for wide deployment of that as a underlying technology.
>
> John B.
> On 2012-08-30, at 2:44 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
>
>> First, I did not talk about SRV records, but URI records.
>>
>> Secondly, I think it is fascinating that people that love new things like "the web" and new HTML5 features are the most conservative ones regarding other protocols like DNS.
>>
>> With that attitude, we have no evolution, and no innovation.
>>
>> Providers that do not support such features will die. It is that simple.
>>
>>   Patrik
>>
>> On 30 aug 2012, at 08:03, William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There are a few folks that feel that SRV records are not really an option for hosting situatiosn where the users don't currently have the ability to configure SRV records.
>>>
>>> From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
>>> To: Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com>
>>> Cc: 'Mark Nottingham' <mnot@mnot.net>; 'IETF Apps Discuss' <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:01 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Looking at Webfinger
>>>
>>> On 29 aug 2012, at 22:44, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1) TXT records (e.g., _webfinger.packetizer.com IN TXT “https://packetizer.webfinger-provider.com/”)
>>>
>>> Please see URI Resource Record, for example:
>>>
>>> _webfinger._tcp.packetizer.com. IN URI 0 0 “https://packetizer.webfinger-provider.com/”
>>>
>>>  Patrik
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> apps-discuss mailing list
>>> apps-discuss@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> apps-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en