IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: weighting transports

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Thu, 01 April 2010 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.com>
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 262B03A6877 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.008
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.461, 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 H3fgq1eBMXFl for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BF26E3A67FD for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 5802 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2010 23:24:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.21) by p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 1 Apr 2010 23:24:03 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT003.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.21]) with mapi; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:24:02 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:23:50 -0700
Subject: Re: weighting transports
Thread-Topic: weighting transports
Thread-Index: AcrR8mnIc3yASvJ9Sp27lrtD5oDzlA==
Message-ID: <8FA27CA0-37DD-420B-A7D6-A187618FFCE5@hueniverse.com>
References: <4BB4ECFD.9090307@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4BB4ECFD.9090307@stpeter.im>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
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 23:23:35 -0000

The discussion should not be limited to DNS. I'm sure there will soon  
be other protocol to access mail that are HTTP based.

EHL

On Apr 1, 2010, at 14:59, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@stpeter.im>  
wrote:

> 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/
>
>
>
> <smime.p7s>
> <ATT00001..txt>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email