Talk:SRV record

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Usage

How could Windows find a Domain Controller in a non-standard way? Is there an ISO standard for finding Domain Controllers?

67.109.213.35 19:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)If they read the RFC they would see they even referance LDAP. I say remove his comment.[reply]

The Windows behavior would be nonstandard if it were in conflict with the standard that specifies how SRV should be used, i.e. the current version of the SRV RFC. Keithmoore (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several usages of SRV are cited. It would be helpful if references were given that described those usages - either the protocol specification for those usages or some other independent source. Also, it would be useful if the article distinguished between standard and nonstandard uses of SRV. Keithmoore (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SRV Record Format

I can't reconcile the nine fields listed for the SRV record format, with the examples you provide in the article, which appear to contain eight space-separated fields. 81.144.134.89 13:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the fields to match RFC 2782. Hopefully this clarifies things. Andareed (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Load Scattering

I would prefer if authors of these protocols and RFCs distinguished between load balancing and load scattering. When one is using metrics to distribute load that's balancing; when one is using stochastic/random methods to distribute load, that's better described as load scattering. (However, since my preference is just that, a personal preference that is not in wide use; I'm NOT recommending that we change the article to reflect this). [Just needed to vent]. JimD (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good starting point might be to create a page on Load Scattering and seeing how that goes over with the editing community... see if it gets nuked as a "neologism" or fleshed out by others. Megacz (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Canonical name" confusion

Just wanted to point out the inaccuracy in the last sentence under Record Format:

"SRV records must point to actual Host Record (a NON-canonical name of the host)."

The "NON" should not be there. SRV records must point to canonical names, which are not CNAME records. This is a consequence of the confusion around CNAME records, which is mentioned in a section under Canonical name. I don't know how it should be fixed, but I think removing the part in parentheses would do. Cmdrwalrus (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usage

Strongly recommend cleanup of Usage section. Possibly affected by advertising? Anyway order in section is very strange and certainly neither based on importance nor on alphabet. Unless Teamspeak and Minecraft are more important than email and SIP. --mafutrct (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on SRV record. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080822121412/http://baraza.im:80/userguide_pre.htm to http://baraza.im/userguide_pre.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Service names are arbitrary?

From research and the list of usages it seems to me like the "service" means nothing, as the SRV lookup must be implemented by the applications, the examples like Minecraft, Matrix, etc. don't have an IANA assignment but can use it regardless. Learncraft (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]