Re: On IETF policy for protocol registries

On 2016-01-19, at 10:24, Matthew Kerwin 
<matthew(_at_)kerwin(_dot_)net(_dot_)au> wrote:
> I'm feeling a little doughy after a long day of staring at logs. Is this idea 
> to allow folk to mint a URL like "http://example.com:foo/"; and have the UA 
> use example.com's DNS to look up what port 'foo' is?
Yes.

> Presumably because example.com is running a server on some random port, which 
> speaks a particular protocol-over-HTTP. Other folk might know that the 
> protocol-over-HTTP is 'foo', but not know what random port it's served over 
> on this machine at this time.
Correct. And service names are assigned FCFS, since there are many more than 
port numbers.

> I like the idea of avoiding a query to a mundane (non-foo-speaking) web 
> server whose whole purpose is just to tell you where to go to speak 'foo', or 
> even the need to have such a thing.
That is exactly the downside I see with the .well-known approach.

> Can DNS-SD tell you what path to query (along with server and port), in case 
> the foo-speaking part of the server is nested within the regular port-80 web 
> server?
I'm not sure. But would you even need that? You can just make foo resolve to 80.

> I also like that it means you don't have to split up your 'foo' (most of it 
> served on port :foo, but some running on port :80 under /.well-known/)
Yep.

Lars

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail