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

Re: on DNS records

From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:44:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNoN58a=b_00+QQytLMhbnCMBRMTLTiO0xfwo0n89HxZ6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> That was one of the issue I raised several times a few months ago
> explaining why I think DNS alone cannot be a solution.
it cannot do the job alone - but it can provide the best service (i.e.
similar level of service as NPN on tls) for many best-practice use cases of
http://. Other cases can use an additional approach (alternate-protocol,
upgrade, etc..) which will certainly be necessary to fill in the gaps. SRV
is essentially a routing mechanism, if you're doing routing some other way
(i.e. a proxy, or a port in the URL, or something that manipulates your
dns) then don't use it. We'll need to also provide another option.

But it is totally forseeable to see http://www.example.com/ generate

A? www.example.com

A =
Additional Records: {SRV _http2-npn._tcp.www.example.com port=443 host=
www.example.com ,
_http2-cleartext._tcp.www.example.comport=81 host=

and that's a pretty darn powerful sequence that should imo be enabled.

(obviously there are other incantations that don't require the additional
record.. the A and SRV lookups in parallel for instance.. but that's all
implementation dependent.).

I dare say we've been over all this ground. To move things forward on my
part, I have a PoC implementation as a todo item but its going to have to
wait several weeks for other prior commitments to clear.
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 22:45:37 UTC

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