- From: Leif Hedstrom <leif@ogre.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:24:43 -0600
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>, driu@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On Jul 10, 2018, at 7:22 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > > >> On 11 Jul 2018, at 3:55 am, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> 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? >> > > I recently did some digging on this topic, and can try to characterise what the issues / objections are. > > Would people be interested in a (hopefully brief) side meeting to discuss and maybe come to a shared understanding of the problem space? Definitely. We (Traffic Server) added some support for SRV a while back, but it’s mostly a hack. Cheers, — Leif
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2018 16:25:17 UTC