[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       namedroppers
Subject:    WKS RRs
From:       Jonathan.McElravy () MAPS ! CS ! CMU ! EDU
Date:       1985-12-11 19:13:00
[Download RAW message or body]

  I have thought from the start that the WKS format was rather awkward
at best and completely wrong at worst. After all, in most cases you are
setting only one bit out of 256. But it will serve the purpose it was
intended to serve.
  The limits on the WKS record do, however, leave a given site's local
services without a way of being communicated. Craig Partridge's example
of ports in the 5000s is an extreme but, then again, we at CMU have
several services available up to 1024. I'm sure most sites have
services with the larger port numbers. I guess these services don't 
count or at least can be ignored at the domain system level. 
  I too, "don't feel strongly enough on this issue to push it hard",
but am disappointed.

					Jon

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]