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

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>, Masataka Ohta writes:
> Dave Cridland wrote:
> 
> > It's proven impossible, despite effort, to retrofit SRV onto HTTP;
> 
> Where is a proof?
> 
> 						Masataka Ohta

Transitioning HTTP to use SRV is trivial even with proxies.

Transitioning HTTPS to use SRV is complicated because of proxies.
There needs to be changes to how clients talk to proxies for HTTPS
+ SRV to work through proxies.

HTTP and HTTPS's use of the DNS is a abomination.  CNAME is totally
misused.  If you want to host a service on another machine you use
a record that indicates that.  You don't use a alias because aliases
mean so much more.

Getting back to WS and SRV, WS needs to be SRV aware from day one
or it needs its own type in the DNS.  If you don't have SRV records
then you fallback to straight address records.

WS needs to specify what happens when a CNAME, literal or synthesised
from a DNAME, is returned in a DNS lookup.  Is "host.example.net
CNAME host.example.com" equivalent to "host.example.net SRV 100 0
0 host.example.com" or is the CNAME treated as a alias and the URL
gets re-written?

Take the case where one name really is a alias for the other.

	ws.example.net CNAME example.net
	_ws._tcp.example.net SRV 100 0 0 server.hoster.com.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]