Re: A mechanism to encode HTTP version information in DNS

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Sun, 17 February 2013 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F1F21E804D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:43:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.338
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.261, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q6PWXS2SWCVn for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:43:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366D621E804A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:43:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1U7CwF-0006pX-KB for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:42:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:42:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1U7CwF-0006pX-KB@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1U7Cw1-0006oI-Ju for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:42:13 +0000
Received: from ip-58-28-153-233.static-xdsl.xnet.co.nz ([58.28.153.233] helo=treenet.co.nz) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1U7Cvy-0005zB-Ap for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:42:13 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.103] (unknown [14.1.64.4]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 974ADE701B for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:41:44 +1300 (NZDT)
Message-ID: <51215CA7.5080904@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:41:43 +1300
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <5120B80C.5070809@cisco.com> <em19001c37-6187-47f9-abbf-616f745bbdfa@bombed> <CAMm+Lwhdk0e-=6TEXR++ELTwmyBFsWN9LhBbpW7Y7ijW9Kn1Sg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwhdk0e-=6TEXR++ELTwmyBFsWN9LhBbpW7Y7ijW9Kn1Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=58.28.153.233; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.437, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1U7Cvy-0005zB-Ap e21a6690f23b0b0eb22fdeddb9bac889
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: A mechanism to encode HTTP version information in DNS
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51215CA7.5080904@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16633
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 18/02/2013 11:05 a.m., Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com 
> <mailto:adrien@qbik.com>> wrote:
>
>     I've always thought one of the issues with SRV is the transport is
>     in the wrong part - the name, so you can't specify that with the
>     result.
>     For something new, we should look at putting the transport into
>     the RR data instead of the name
>     then it makes it possible to deploy over multiple transports later
>     on, e.g. SCTP, UDP whatever if desired.
>
>
> That is exactly what the URI RR does, the target is a URI which can of 
> course specify a new scheme.
>
> I think it best to treat _http._tcp as simply a code point 
> corresponding to the http URI scheme and the _tcp part as just a default..
>
> If you wanted to specify a different transport then you would either 
> specify a different scheme or you would specify it as a discovery 
> parameter for that scheme.
>

Or since HTTP is effectively a transport in these respects we have _http 
defined alongside _tcp, and make the under-layer transport an option in 
URI RR

   _http.example.com <http://tcp.example.com>  URI 10 10 
"http://www1.example.com/ TCP HTTP/2.0"

With default option for under-layer being TCP when no other is mentioned 
specifically.

Amos