W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: moving forward on draft-lear-httpbis-svcinfo-rr

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 16:35:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNeyeVXSMgFtumTiv3AsJrQB46s84f8c=HJZL_0xRBBzpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Cc: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I think he means that whomever put the data in there could a time/date
beyond which that field was considered stale and shouldn't be interpreted
by clients.
This wouldn't be necessary if we could trust DNS down through to the client
to actually follow TTL, but.. fact is, we can't.

-=R


On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>wrote:

> First, what others (e.g. Mark) said. Second, some details below.
>
>
> On 2013/02/06 6:27, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:
>
>  If we stuff SETTINGS into the DNS record, we'd have to keep in mind
>> TTL. Either the record would need to include TTL info for the
>> SETTINGS, or it'd have to be coupled with the record's TTL, which I
>> think is probably undesirable.
>>
>
> I think you mean that you want the SETTINGs in the DNS record to have a
> shorter TTL than the record itself. But that couldn't possibly work. The
> browser would understand the SETTINGs and would poll DNS with an interval
> corresponding to the higher SETTINGs TTL, but DNS caches would only use the
> lower DNS record TTL and therefore wouldn't get updated.
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 00:35:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 February 2013 00:35:45 GMT