IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] consensus call on not specifying DNS SRV as mandatory to implement

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 01 August 2011 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D639721F8D2B for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 07:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.417
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.118, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 hu0Cd4IgfMgl for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 07:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 452EE21F8D2A for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 07:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from squire.local (unknown [216.17.251.72]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6E70A41309; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 08:52:29 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4E36BD5F.10601@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:51:11 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
References: <CA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C11403B665F@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <CALiegfnakxAyN19KGE2JcfNOvFKeGqK_VCQVDiqHOPPBo7Ctqg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfnakxAyN19KGE2JcfNOvFKeGqK_VCQVDiqHOPPBo7Ctqg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [hybi] consensus call on not specifying DNS SRV as mandatory to implement
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:51:08 -0000

On 7/31/11 6:07 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2011/7/30 Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>:
>> At the meeting and on the mailing list leading up to it, the chairs did not
>> see consensus for the following action:
>>
>>                 Specify DNS SRV as mandatory to implement in the websocket
>> protocol specification.
>>
>> We’re confirming on the mailing list, and will declare this consensus call
>> final by next Friday Aug 5.
> 
> 
> I was proposing it, but after long discussions in the maillist I've
> understood that mandating DNS SRV in WS clients would break too much
> assumptions in HTTP world (which commonly just sees above HTTP layer
> and not below).
> 
> The existence of HTTP proxies is also a big handicap since those
> proxies should be upgraded/modified in order to perform DNS SRV
> resolution *just* in case the HTTP request is a WebSocket handshake.
> This last argument is enough to not mandate SRV resolution.
> 
> So I see two options (for the future):
> 
> 1) As Greg says: consider again DNS SRV if we ever have a non HTTP handshake.

IMHO that's possible but unlikely.

> 2) Introduce SRV (optional of course) in HTTP protocol (WS would just
> inherit it automatically).

That's been tried, but it failed:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jennings-http-srv/

It was a nice idea, though. :)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email