- From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:03:54 -0500
- To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
- Cc: DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>, driu@ietf.org, Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-3@u-1.phicoh.com>, dnsop@ietf.org, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 7/10/18 12:55 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > On Jul 10, 2018, at 18:02, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote: > >> In large part because DNS provides "a richer scheme that accommodates address families and multiple addresses with priorities". > *cups hand to ear* > > Was that the sound of a distant desire to specify use of SRV for HTTP? > Speaking personally (that is: this position may be at odds with any number of organizations I'm affiliated with), I've been sad for a very long time that SRV didn't take off as the entry point for doing all name/service resolution. Maintaining a service-to-port map in 2018 seems as quaint as if we were still having to manually set and de-conflict IRQ values on PC peripherals. This is way off-topic, though -- if you want to continue, find another venue and let me know (or we can find a time to commiserate over beers in Montreal if you prefer). /a
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2018 18:04:29 UTC