In message <B2C17B21-EA8A-4698-8C41-F55A9AA140D4(_at_)gbiv(_dot_)com>, "Roy T.
On Jul 21, 2011, at 10:52 AM, I=F1aki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/21 Dave Cridland <dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net>:
It's proven impossible, despite effort, to retrofit SRV onto HTTP; there=
no way it'll be possible to retrofit onto WS.
Right. If WS borns with no SRV (as a MUST for WS clients) then just
forget it and let inherit all the ugly limitations from HTTP protocol.
I am tired of this. SRV is not used for HTTP because SRV adds latency
to the initial request for no useful purpose whatsoever.
How do you solve the problem of hosting just "http://example.com/"
on "s1.joes-web-service.com" and not redirect everything else at
example.com? People have been complaining about this for about as
long as the web has existed.
SRV records for
XMPP and MX records for mail are useful because there is only one such
server expected per domain and it is *very* desirable to maintain central
control over that routing. In contrast, HTTP is deployed in an anarchic
manner in which there are often several HTTP servers per machine
(e.g., tests, staging, production, CUPS, etc,). AFAICT, WebSockets is
even more anarchic than HTTP -- it will have to be, given that the sane
network admins will block it by default.
In short, SRV is not used by the Web because it is inappropriate for HTTP.
I have seen no reason to believe that it would be appropriate for WebSocket=
If you want SRV to be part of the proposed standard, then you have to convi=
the people implementing WS to use SRV. None have done so, yet, so we can't
expect the editor to add it to the spec just because you have an opinion.
Ietf mailing list
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
Ietf mailing list