[Http-srv] Alternative to SRV?

[Ray Bellis <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Adam, for creating the mailing list.

As mentioned at the side-meeting in Montreal, I strongly believe that 
the way forward should be a new RR that is specific for the use of 
HTTP(s) (c.f. MX for SMTP) and that would be automatically looked up by 
recursive resolvers and returned in answers [*]

This recursive lookup step would give this record the equivalent 
performance to CNAME whilst avoiding the complexities (and failings) of 
SRV or ANAME.

I'd like to write that up in a draft, but to do so I'd like to co-author 
  with HTTP specialists to ensure that any such RR has the fields they 
deem necessary without the extra ones that SRV has that we heard are not 
desirable (specifically port numbers and load-balancing / weighting).

Who'd be up for helping with this?

Ray Bellis
ISC Research Fellow

[*] one caveat - the look-up would have to be optional in the 
specification because making it mandatory would prevent the use of the 
RR Expert Review process which doesn't allow for the assignment of
RRs with mandatory server side processing.