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

Re: #385: HTTP2 Upgrade / Negotiation

From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:57:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqXaLo3ORfuL0rXh+DSaCmZRr4ESwEbkMRw4G_JeuyG1w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

I'm not an expert here, but yes, there are lots of ways to badly design
your DNS and incur delays - but there are also reasonable ones. This is not
substantially different than the 'out of baliwick' DNS issues from the 90's
right? but that also shows it is resolvable within the current record type
framework, as you say in this case by using the same name which is what I
think we're all envisioning.

something like

www.example.com 86400 IN A
_http2tls._tcp.www.example.com. 86400 IN SRV 0 5 443 www.example.com.

there is nothing really unworkable about using a different target name, it
just might incur delays (depending on cache state) that remove the value of
the scheme. So don't do that :)


[eliot, sorry for the double send to you - meant to send it to the list the
first time.]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

A solution to this issue is to use the same name.  That guarantees the
same authority.

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 13:58:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:07 UTC