On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:19:30PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Well, I understand (and agree) most of your text, but I still think
that the URI resolution mechanism is something transparent for an
end-user. This is not like having FlashPlayer for showing annoying and
dancing menus in a web page XD. End-users ask for FlashPlayer (and
Android 2.3 has included it for example) but end-users won't ask for
"SRV procedures".
They won't "ask for", but when some sites pretend "we work better with",
then they'll ask for the techno to use the site better. It's similar to
the HTTP/1.0 or 1.1, keep-alive and pipelining that you can enable in
your browser. Most users won't play with it, still that's pretty
configurable. Similarly end users can decide to enable/disable IPv6 or
IDN.
I would translate your arguments to "web developers", those who want
to provide scalable systems and for which having some kind of QoS
mechanisms (specially for mobile devices) is a great advantage. Of
course, if this happens then end-users would be happier :)
I think you got it :-)
Willy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf