Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Pro

> On 3 jan 2015, at 15:32, Måns Nilsson <mansaxel(_at_)besserwisser(_dot_)org> 
> wrote:
>
> I strongly support incorporating SRV record support in the HTTPbis
> specification.
FWIW, I am also in favor or SRV, although I (being biased) think "how to use 
URI with HTTP2" would not be a bad addition either[1].

We do though have multiple discussions like these, that I do not think really 
conclude:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8404612>

Because of this, what I think IS (at least) needed in the http2 spec are a few 
words about DNS. Else the discussions will just continue and continue...

One could for example say something like:

"If the URI does not include a path (only consists of scheme and authority, 
which in turn include domain), a client MIGHT look up either SRV record 
_http._tcp.domain or URI for the same owner_http._tcp.domain and act on the 
result of those lookups according to the SRV and URI spec respectively."

And then reference some "happy eyeballs" specification on how to do it in 
detail.

What I think would be good with such text is that _http._tcp would be well 
defined (and it should be repeated in the IANA considerations section).

And maybe even replace _http with _http2 which might even make things more 
efficient?

   Patrik

[1] The URI RR Type 256 has been registered for a number of years, but the I-D 
that describe the use (draft-faltstrom-uri) has been stuck in IESG for quite a 
number of years. AD has been working on unstucking it for half a year or so, 
and I hope it really will happen shortly.

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail