Re: [port-srv-reg] "assigned" ( vs. "registered"), and related issues

[Olafur Gudmundsson <[e-mail]>]

At 03:39 13/01/2010, Lars Eggert wrote:

> > IMO, this basically treats SRV names as old port numbers were treated -
> > i.e., ask for a name, get ALL transports. That's how port number
> > assignments were done until recently, where now only the needed
> > transport is assigned.
> >
> > So IMO a service means something only relative to a transport. However,
> > it'd be useful to require the transport be specified only if the same
> > name would mean different things for different transports. Do we ever
> > see that happening?
>
>Right. Or, in other words, if you have a service name, it's yours 
>for all transports, just as ports used to be. (There are so many 
>service names that we can burn combinations that aren't used, and 
>limit interactions with IANA.)
>
>Lars

The important point is:
Each service is going to have one or more transports that are "preferred",
these preferences need to be noted in the registry.
(this point applies both to port allocations and service names).

See section 5.1 of
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify-00

for proposed search order when priority order is not known.

         Olafur