From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19265 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2012 06:44:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 19257 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Mar 2012 06:44:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO sourceware.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:44:03 +0000 From: "binki at gentoo dot org" To: glibc-bugs@sources.redhat.com Subject: [Bug libc/2099] Support for SRV records in getaddrinfo Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:26:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc X-Bugzilla-Component: libc X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: binki at gentoo dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: drepper.fsp at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg00261.txt.bz2 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2099 Nathan Phillip Brink (binki) changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |binki at gentoo dot org --- Comment #7 from Nathan Phillip Brink (binki) 2012-03-20 06:42:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > Actually, it won't work. RFC 2782 specifies that all SRV records have a host > name attached. It's not just information about the port. Given that, what would > > getaddrinfo ("host1.domain", "someserv", ....) > > mean if the SRV record for > > _someserv._tcp.domain I'm quite sure that when the SRV spec says "domain", it is referring to the full domain. Not the domain in the sense of domainname(1). I.e., you would search for _someserv._tcp.host1.domain instead of _someserv._tcp.domain. Am I misreading the spec here? > has the host name "host2.domain" associated? It makes no sense. There can only > be a functions which queries the SRV records based on the service name alone. > Trying to embed this into getaddrinfo is no good. If the word "domain" in the SRV spec is interpreted properly, this objection makes no sense. Sure, it is likely enough that getaddrinfo("domain", "someserv", ...) will not tell you to go ahead and connect directly to "domain". But getaddrinfo("host1.domain", "someserv", ...) would likely not hit any SRV records at all and fall back to the traditional DNS lookups. The main objection to this change would be that programs would suddenly break if getaddrinfo(node, serv, ...) would suddenly tried to find the appropriate host for accessing serv at node. In reality, few domains set SRV records for services where there is no program support. So, most programs which would be affected by this change would behave no differently if getaddrinfo() started actually looking up services instead of just hosts. It would be really nice to get SRV support in applications with no added complexity. Maybe the interface provided by ruli http://nongnu.org/ruli/tutorial/getaddrinfo.html is a way to get these advantages without departing too far from getaddrinfo()... -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.