IETF Logo Mail Archive

weighting transports

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 01 April 2010 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED2F3A697B for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MaOP+YhAxnzf for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D5453A6A6F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leavealone.cisco.com (72-163-0-129.cisco.com [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EECC40D3A; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:59:11 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4BB4ECFD.9090307@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:59:09 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: weighting transports
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms030302040406000506010409"
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:58:44 -0000

Sometimes a client needs to determine which transport or technology an
application server prefers for a given service type. For examples, an
email service might be provided via both POP and IMAP or a website might
be available via both TCP and SCTP.

The approach taken in draft-daboo-srv-email is to check multiple SRV
records (here IMAP would be preferred):

       _imap._tcp     SRV  0 1 143 imap.example.com.
       _pop3._tcp     SRV 10 1 110 pop3.example.com.

The approach taken in draft-yourtchenko-tran-announce-dns is to define a
new DNS RR (here SCTP would be preferred):

       _http.www      XPORT    5 _sctp
                      XPORT    9 _tcp

I think  it would be good to come to rough consensus (if possible) on a
preferred approach in the Applications Area.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email