2011/7/26 Willy Tarreau <w(_at_)1wt(_dot_)eu>:
if you want to have any chance of making SRV *usable* with WS (or
HTTP), you have to motivate both sides by showing them that :
- it's better for them to use it than not to use it (both servers and
browsers)
- the additional cost of using it is negligible
- there are no issues with not using it
These are godd points, but I never wanted to propose SRV for HTTP as I
consider it's just unfeasible at this time (take into account the
ammount of HTTP clients in the world, as browsers, libraries in any
language and so on).
- leaving the choices to the intermediaries will not cause disruptions
This last point is hard to accomplish (I'm just talking about SRV for
WS, not for HTTP) because HTTP proxies should be capable of
determining that a GET request is in fact a WS handshake, and *just*
in that case perform SRV procedures over the domain (assuming that
there won't be SRV in the old, anti-fashion and technologically
limited HTTP world).
I'm pretty sure that can be done, but clearly not the way it's been
presented till now.
If the requeriment for including SRV in WS is also including it in
HTTP then I surrender. I don't think it will never happen, neither I'm
an expert in HTTP for such kind of proposal.
Thanks a lot.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(_at_)aliax(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf