ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard

2011-07-24 11:37:12
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:

Where is a proof?
Sorry, I've a habit of using the word "proof" in the English

1) There are no SRV records.
2) Therefore browsers do not support them.
3) Therefore you'd need to allow for A-lookup as fallback for the forseeable future.
4) Therefore there's no incentive for browsers to support SRV.

That's a perfect proof against IPv6 deployment. Infrastructure
won't be updated.

However, for application layers issues like SRV ones, thanks to
the end to end argument, only servers and clients need
upgrading without infrastructure changes, which is why major
application of the Internet changed from ftp to http.

Where is a proof?  :)

A Major Application will offer all services necessary for the customer to leverage. They are not going to eliminate ftp just because the "developer" likes http better or whats customers to switch to http. Even then, where I have seen a history of people using a http link, I have also seen many changed back, if only to help balance or spread loads.

My personal technical input on SRV. It works when particular applications needs them or have become dependent on them in order to resolve connectivity. i.e. xmpp. But to me, there is an awful lot of waste and redundant lookups just to resolve an uri. It would appear to me for web sockets, due to its intended market place of returning interactive I/O applications now over the web and specially mobile and wireless networks, the less overhead the better.

--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>