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

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

From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:56:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CABaLYCuKuei2jOKpFtcQ8Y+7oPrhfibn3HN1rqGqRkUGt1H5Bg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I am sorry if this sounds too negative.

But personally, I don't think this proposal is a good avenue to take at
all.  Further, I don't believe there will be any significant
implementations of it.  I heard similar comments from others offline, but
I'll let them speak up here.

I would propose:
   a) Find out if there is really any support for this approach from
implementors
   b) If so, have at it!
   c) If not, let's table it and move on

Mike



On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> At the interim meeting we discussed this draft in several different
> contexts.  Here is my understanding of what people would like to see,
> going forward:
>
> 1.  Change the InstanceId to be something mnemonic instead of a number,
> so that services can have names.
> 2.  Combine transport protocol and version information into a profile
> 3.  Add a text field that can provide browser hints.
>
> I have no issues with the first two.  There were two examples given for
> the 3rd: browser hints and BDP.  I think we decided that BDP wouldn't
> work well, so do people agree that browser hints are appropriate for
> DNS?  If so, what's a good example?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eliot
>
>
Received on Sunday, 10 February 2013 21:57:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 10 February 2013 21:57:06 GMT