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

Re: HTTP 1.1 --> 2.0 Upgrade

From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:00:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCUgKRYarXOXqRXtCxRpu-pDJehif-zVv9dVKnjw0Ae+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

> Reasonable?  Yes.  Best course of action?  I don't know.  I know I'm
> beginning to sound like a broken record, but I don't know if SRV is the
> right record for the job.  For one thing, if you use another record, you
> can use that same optimistic approach for an explicit port in the URI.
> Of course, then there is the added implementation headache of a new
> record.  We've gotten around that elseewhere with TXT records, but I
> don't recommend it here.

Do you mean to suggest something like
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-faltstrom-uri-06.txt ?


Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 19:00:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:06 UTC