- From: Kinkie <gkinkie@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 11:36:23 +0200
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2 July 2014 22:02, Kinkie <gkinkie@gmail.com> wrote: >> To me this sounds like a step back compared to DNS SRV records, which offer >> priority, weight and ttl. > > > I'll note that if (and it's a pretty big if) we support DNS SRV, then > adding priorization and weight to the alternative service declaration > would be *in addition to* SRV. I think that keeping this simple is > best, noting that the server can apply things like prioritization and > weighting *before* sending the alternative service indication out. > This is not an option in the DNS scenarios due to the DNS > architecture, i.e., caching, but it's totally feasible here. DNS SRV has been out for a long time, and so far it hasn't gained traction except in very specific cases for some reason. Using ALT-SVC at the HTTP level has advantages over it however: it allows to have easy, dynamic, server-driven load redirection and redistribution policies. > There are some arguments for having the client be able to choose, but > isomorphism with SRV is not one of those. I agree. However feature-parity IMO is one such argument. Especially if the needed change is - at least apparently - trivial. -- Francesco
Received on Friday, 4 July 2014 09:36:51 UTC