💾 Archived View for bbs.geminispace.org › s › misfin › 1460 captured on 2023-12-28 at 17:24:45. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

SRV records

Any thoughts on making SRV records part of the spec? I think it adds a lot of flexibility for the server operator without much cost and can be pretty beneficial when your ISP does something boneheaded like block port 1958.

Posted in: s/misfin

🏍️ winduptoy

Jun 03 · 7 months ago · 👍 ERnsTL · ❤ 1

7 Comments ↓

🦀 jeang3nie · 2023-06-03 at 20:30:

I can see the utility of it (while at the same time marveling that an isp might think it's ok to block traffic) but hate to see a nice simple protocol gain "features".

🏍️ winduptoy · 2023-06-04 at 15:24:

I hate to think of this as a feature, but more of an internet-wide thing. When ISPs started blocking port 25, that killed SMTP self-hosting for lots of people at home. Imagine a world where SRV records were ubiquitous for all protocols, then "non-standard" ports would be a non-issue.

🧩 ERnsTL · 2023-06-08 at 00:10:

I would also find an SRV record useful. It would add not more than a paragraph to the spec. You could mark use/lookup of the SRV record as optional for client implementations.

🐐 satch · 2023-06-08 at 20:00:

I support this as well. I don’t think it adds significant complexity, and it could definitely be marked as optional.

🏍️ winduptoy · 2023-06-13 at 22:09:

I'm curious how you think making this optional would improve things rather than add confusion. If it were a mandatory part of a spec, then any client would be able to look up a server regardless of the port it's running on. If it's optional and I need to run a server on a non-default port for one reason or another, then a client that supports SRV will load the site just fine, but a client that doesn't will probably leave a user confused when his buddy says it works just fine.

🏍️ winduptoy · 2023-06-13 at 22:13:

I also think SRV records could be used for multi-hosting in a sane way. If I have an account on a server with many other users and I don't have root access, then I'm essentially forced to use a non-default port for any server process I want to run. If I run a server for a protocol that requires SRV records to be defined, then many users could run their own processes on arbitrary ports, each with their own domain CNAMEs and SRVs with no problem.

🐐 satch · 2023-06-13 at 22:22:

@winduptoy good point. I guess what I mean is no SRV record is necessary if one wants to use the default port. It shouldn’t really be an optional feature for clients though, that would be confusing.