I am opposed to inclusion in core specification. I would accept it as
optional extension.
DNS resolution is not a function of a transport protocol. DNS SRV has no
special association with WS. It is my opinion that this would be
additional cruft that is only marginally related to the purpose and function
of websockets. It does not address a general use case. DNS SRV applies
only to a (small?) subset of server-side implementations. It is a good
and useful mechanism, but I do not believe it should be tied tightly to
websockets, nor included as part of the core spec.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(_at_)aliax(_dot_)net>
wrote:
2011/7/19 Dave Cridland <dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net>:
Hi, I assume there is no interest in making DNS SRV mechanism exposed
in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ibc-websocket-dns-srv-02 part of
the WebSocket core specification, neither referencing it (in the same
way RFC 3261 "SIP protocol" mandates the usage of RFC 3263 "Locating
SIP servers").
As said before, making such DNS SRV specification an extension (so
present in other document) will mean no success at all, as WebSocket
client implementors (i.e. webbrowser vendors) will not be mandated to
implement it and service providers could not rely on the support of
DNS SRV in web browsers. So nobody will use them (because IE10 decided
not to implement it, for example). IMHO this is sad due the real
advantages DNS SRV provides for a protocol like WebSocket.
Yes, in HTTP there is no special DNS stuff, all the load-balancing and
failover mechanism are done at server side with very complex and
expensive solutions (www.facebook.com resolves to a single IPv4 !!!!).
The question is: should we also inherit every HTTP limitation in
WebSocket?
I agree wholeheartedly with this, and strongly recommend that mandatory
use
of SRV is included in the core protocol.
I think with HTTP's very short lived requests, then it's possible to work
around the lack of SRV support (at a cost), but the benefit is markedly
higher with the long-lived, stateful sessions we're anticipating with
WebSocket.
Unfortunaltely it seems that the debate about DNS SRV support does not
interest to the core WG authors. I would like, at least, to receive
good arguments not to include/mandate DNS SRV support in the draft. If
not, the proposal is just being ignored with no reason.
Regards.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(_at_)aliax(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
hybi mailing list
hybi(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf