Re: [Http-srv] Alternative to SRV?

[Ray Bellis <[e-mail]>]

On 22/08/2018 05:45, Mark Andrews wrote:

> I suspect the starting point of a new record would be a PTR/CNAME analog.
> 
> 		<site> HTTP <server>
> 
> If you want to add alternate transports
> 
> 		<site> HTTP <transport> <server>
> 
> then you add “A and AAAA records SHOULD retrieved and added to the additional
> section prior to returning the response to the HTTP query”.

Yes, that's pretty much my expectation, albeit I suspect we'd need the 
latter with a <transport> field, since I do anticipate that there will 
be a need to have different target addresses for HTTP vs HTTP(s) vs 
HTTP-over-FOO, and where the <tranport> field also provides information 
to the browser of which transport to actually try.

I would probably suggest that <transport> should be a (short) text field 
to allow for agility of transport names rather than using a numerical 
registry that might require DNS server upgrades any time a new transport 
is devised.

Ray