Subject: i call your attention to...

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:44:57 -0700

... draft-ietf-mmusic-sip-09.txt, in which it states that to find a SIP
server for a given domain, the second most preferred method is to use MX
records, under the assumption that often times mail servers for a domain
will in fact be SIP servers.  Do people agree with this use of MX, or
should SRV actually get some blessing (the preferred method) or is there
a third preferred mechanism (i.e., normal A records)?
--
Eliot Lear
[email-masked]

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:09:10 -0700

I'm not sure that we would want to encourage the use the MX records for 
other purposes.  I suspect we'd see more problems than if a new record 
type were used.

---

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 14:44:55 -0700 (PDT)

> a third preferred mechanism (i.e., normal A records)?

I'd say that MX records shouldn't be used for anything other than locating
the server to which one will connect to transfer email. 

SRV records seem to be an appropriate solution to the more generic "simple
server location" problem, although service location protocol and NAPTR
records should be considered if attribute-based or URI-oriented queries
are more appropriate. 

But I haven't read about this "SIP", so I'm not sure what their
justification for overloading the semantics of MX records is.

		- Chris

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:40:13 -0700

In a followup note one of the authors indicated that MXes had been
pulled.  This seems to have occurred after -09, the version presented
for last call...
-- 
Eliot Lear
[email-masked]