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

Re: #385: HTTP2 Upgrade / Negotiation

From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:46:24 +0200
Message-ID: <50879CD0.9050606@cisco.com>
To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
CC: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

On 10/23/12 8:54 PM, Patrick McManus wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:33 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
> <willchan@chromium.org <mailto:willchan@chromium.org>> wrote:
>
>
>     Just to be clear, SRV records also have the disadvantage of not
>     upgrading the first interaction, unless you block on the response,
>
>
> also being clear - in cases where SRV wins the race there is an
> advantage to be had without blocking. A high quality implementation
> can bundle the srv response with the A as an additional record.. even
> if that isn't what is happening today, supporting this mechanism
> provides a path for servers to opt themselves into it without blocking
> on it. And of course sometimes name resolution happens considerably
> before connect happens so there still might be an opportunity to
> collect both the a* and the srv before going to connect without
> blocking on it even if the SRV considerably lags the A. So I think
> this is an important optimization.


I continue to be concerned about the use of SRV for any number of
reasons, but one big one is that what you describe above could induce
cache pollution due to different sources of authority.  I would prefer
to see a different record used that uses the same name, and therefore,
the same authority.

Eliot
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 07:46:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 October 2012 07:47:03 GMT