- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:41:43 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 18/02/2013 11:05 a.m., Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com > <mailto:adrien@qbik.com>> wrote: > > I've always thought one of the issues with SRV is the transport is > in the wrong part - the name, so you can't specify that with the > result. > For something new, we should look at putting the transport into > the RR data instead of the name > then it makes it possible to deploy over multiple transports later > on, e.g. SCTP, UDP whatever if desired. > > > That is exactly what the URI RR does, the target is a URI which can of > course specify a new scheme. > > I think it best to treat _http._tcp as simply a code point > corresponding to the http URI scheme and the _tcp part as just a default.. > > If you wanted to specify a different transport then you would either > specify a different scheme or you would specify it as a discovery > parameter for that scheme. > Or since HTTP is effectively a transport in these respects we have _http defined alongside _tcp, and make the under-layer transport an option in URI RR _http.example.com <http://tcp.example.com> URI 10 10 "http://www1.example.com/ TCP HTTP/2.0" With default option for under-layer being TCP when no other is mentioned specifically. Amos
Received on Sunday, 17 February 2013 22:42:13 UTC