- From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 22:29:29 +0100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Josh Goodall <joshua.goodall@gmail.com>
- CC: IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi, On 2/17/14, 8:48 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > As a reminder, since it's been a while since we first had this discussion. > > The main problem with SRV is that it uses sub-domains as the basis of > differentiating different protocols. e.g., _http._tcp.example.com. > This might be an important feature. This likely results in additional > latency, particularly since zone cuts appear here frequently and > retrieval might then require additional queries. This is why Eliot > proposed a new RR type that includes service type as an additional > parameter, closer instead to NAPTR. Right. I optimized for fewer queries. The record format that I had was one approach. The key issue is that one should not have levels of indirection in the RDATA, and even better that the QNAME for the record be the same as for the A or AAAA. On the other hand, then you have to deploy a new RRtype. Eliot
Received on Monday, 17 February 2014 21:29:59 UTC