On 15/02/2013 9:16 a.m., Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > Encoding HTTP version information in DNS is easy if you don't > particularly care about using DNS properly or want to do anything more > than encode HTTP version information. > > Doing it well gets rather more complex. A DNS query costs a round trip > so you would ideally like to make it pay. Also the process of > deploying DNS records takes some time and it is better to reuse an > existing record but only if that will not create ambiguity. > > Looking again at the URI record, I think that we could use it to > provide a HTTP version flag and other useful features in the DNS. In > particular we can use the URI record to effect a HTTP redirect in DNS > (a UDP round trip) rather than require a TCP round trip. It also > provides for fault tolerance and load balancing and works well with > Web Services. One small note on this assertion: FQDN are capable of being anything up to 256 octets long *per-label*. When the FQDN is greater than 250 octets or so this will add both a UDP round trip plus a TCP round trip, on top of the final connection setup round trip. This may not seem a critical point, but we are already encountering web sites and services with >64 octet FQDN in public traffic which is causing TLS certificate issues. That asside, I am liking this proposal better than any of the earlier DNS proposals. I can forsee support from Squid being implemented if this is selected to go ahead. AmosReceived on Friday, 15 February 2013 05:47:28 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 February 2013 05:47:34 GMT