Re: on DNS records

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:18:59PM +0000, Adrien W. de Croy wrote:
> this just comes down to who should define the transport / protocol and 
> when.
> If you say the protocol and transport are defined in the URI, then it's 
> fixed, and if you wish to change protocol or transport, you need to 
> change your URIs.
> If you adopt an approach where transport and protocol can be 
> discovered, then you can change protocol or transport without needing 
> to change URIs.
> My proposal was just a way of making transport and transfer protocol be 
> discoverable (e.g. queried by DNS).  This way a server operator can 
> upgrade their server without involving the people who have content 
> hosted on it.

I'm well aware of this, but the issue comes down to how do we allow
end users to fix the mess we deploy and which prevents them from
connecting ?

Also, having the HTTP upgrade supported by default allows all site
owners to support HTTP/2 transparently by the way of an upgrade. A
new scheme would simply allow them to provide their users with a
way to connect with raw frames and skip the upgrade. But that way
nothing is mandatory and each side adopts http/2 at its pace.


Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 23:26:17 UTC