W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)

From: Patrik Fältström <patrik@frobbit.se>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:57:31 +0100
Message-Id: <5B092333-30BD-481B-8E6A-F41DB5C586C2@frobbit.se>
Cc: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, "mnot@mnot.net" <mnot@mnot.net>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>


On 24 feb 2012, at 17:43, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

> It is
> the number of folks who, for lots of reasons, haven't upgraded
> from operating systems, resolvers, etc., that don't support
> newer RRTYPES.

As I said, people disagree... ;-)

As far as I know, there is nothing in any of the operating systems you mention that prohibits an application to send a random udp packet, and because of that your application can include a resolver library.

What is a problem are the cases where DNS is not used at all at the end node, but instead other name binding/lookup protocols combined with a firewall policy that because of this can and is blocking udp+tcp/53 in various ways.

That said, I still ask when it is, in general, time to just move forward. I see for example many other reasons why people should not use that old software. IE6 for example. Yes, economically constrained situations exists, but that problem do not go away by having us not start using SRV or HTTP/1.1 or SNI or HTML5.0 or...pick your favourite. And with SPF, that is not used by the edge node either.

I am asking more generally why specifically this DNS issue is so stuck, because I think that is unfair. We upgrade other protocols...

But my point is, people disagree. As we see here ;-)

   Patrik
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 16:57:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:56 GMT