W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: multi-host virtual sites for HTTP 1.2

From: Martin Hamilton <martin@mrrl.lut.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 19:16:22 +0100
Message-Id: <199607111816.TAA16775@gizmo.lut.ac.uk>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Paul Leach writes:

| Maybe a DNS guru can comment? Or a friend of one can forward it along?
| I'd hate to duplicate the functionality.

I'm not a DNS guru, but here's my two new pence's worth anyway...

The docs in question are: draft-gulbrandsen-dns-rr-srvcs-03.txt &
RFC 1876, by the way.

LOC is supported in BIND 4.9.4, which is the current production
release.  SRV has been slated for BIND 4.9.5, which is meant to be
coming out later this year.  One of the co-authors, Paul Vixie, is
also the BIND maintainer.  For more info, check out the Internet
Software Consortium Web pages at <URL:http://www.isc.org/isc/>

OK, so SRV can be expected to see the light of day quite soon in
the most widely used DNS implementation.  Can I interest any
browser and/or proxy authors in taking advantage of it ?  Methinks
added resilience via SRV would be a good selling point ... :-)

Martin

PS There was also something about putting SRV up for Proposed
Standard


ielding[SMTP:fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU]
>Sent: 	Wednesday, July 10, 1996 8:17 PM
>To: 	http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>Cc: 	Larry Masinter
>Subject: 	Re: short names for headers 
>
From the Montreal minutes suggestion for a new charter's milestones:
>
>> Aug 1:   (Leach)   draft on sticky headers, short names for headers, and
>>  	  	   context identifiers
>
>I suggest dropping this as a product of the working group.  Although it
>is certainly possible to compress the protocol through two adjacent
>communicating parties by the addition of stateful interaction (what is
>meant by sticky headers and context identifiers) and tokenizing protocol
>elements (a small part of which is covered by short names for headers),
>it is not a trivial task and needs to be extremely careful with regard
>to proxy-proxy communication with requests from multiple user agents
>being interleaved.  This falls into the category of "research" and
>should be investigated outside the standards arena.
>
>In other words, I don't think this task can be accomplished within the
>lifetime of this WG. Furthermore, even if it were accomplished, our long
>term (within a year) plans for HTTP would end up replacing it by the
>multiplexing and tokenizing of HTTP/2.x.  Therefore, I think it would be
>better to focus within the WG on things that can be done before the
>next IETF meeting, and encourage other efforts to focus on the research
>work that already needs doing for multiplexing and tokenizing of HTTP/2.x.
>
> ...Roy T. Fielding
>    Department of Information & Computer Science    (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
>    University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-3425    fax:+1(714)824-4056
>    http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/
>
>
Received on Thursday, 11 July 1996 11:21:28 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:05 EDT