Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard

[Francis Brosnan Blazquez <[e-mail]>]

> As said before, making such DNS SRV specification an extension (so
> present in other document) will mean no success at all, as WebSocket
> client implementors (i.e. webbrowser vendors) will not be mandated to
> implement it and service providers could not rely on the support of
> DNS SRV in web browsers. So nobody will use them (because IE10 decided
> not to implement it, for example). IMHO this is sad due the real
> advantages DNS SRV provides for a protocol like WebSocket.
> 
> Yes, in HTTP there is no special DNS stuff, all the load-balancing and
> failover mechanism are done at server side with very complex and
> expensive solutions (www.facebook.com resolves to a single IPv4 !!!!).
> The question is: should we also inherit every HTTP limitation in
> WebSocket?

+1

It is little the effort for web browser implementors and will provide
lot of benefits to end users and developers which would be able to
provide scalable/configurable services easily. I'm with Iñaki: its usage
must be mandatory to really make it available in all browsers...