Open
Conversation
Author
|
just reading through other PRs and now understand the internal nature of this library, I'd also missed that in my readme skimming. Accept/close as you see fit :) |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
hey, thanks for maintaining this!
Here's a small (maybe annoying) fix:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2782 allows for srv records with port numbers >= 0.
More specifically, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6763.html states
In my case, I'm trying to implement an IPP Everywhere server, the spec for which states
So.. any chance of removing the
port != 0check? :)Cheers again,
Jarrad