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

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <9031.1311328268.180517@puncture>, Dave Cridland writes:
> On Fri Jul 22 01:11:33 2011, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> > Dave Cridland wrote:
> > 
> > > It's proven impossible, despite effort, to retrofit SRV onto HTTP;
> > 
> > Where is a proof?
> 
> Sorry, I've a habit of using the word "proof" in the English (and  
> indeed Welsh) sense of "test" or "trial", rather than the  
> mathematical sense of the statement backed up by logic.
> 
> I should simply say that there have been attempts (I recall more than  
> one draft), but the situation is sufficiently entrenched that these  
> have gained no traction, in no small part because of the requirement  
> for something close to a flag day.

There is no need for a flag day.  If SRV support had been added
when first proposed there would be close to 100% by now.  Browsers
get regularly updated so there really is no reason to not add SRV
support.

The main reason to add SRV support is to provide indirection.

> 1) There are no SRV records.
> 
> 2) Therefore browsers do not support them.
> 
> 3) Therefore you'd need to allow for A-lookup as fallback for the  
> forseeable future.
> 
> 4) Therefore there's no incentive for browsers to support SRV.
>
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Cridland - mailto:[e-mail] - xmpp:[e-mail]
>   - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
>   - http://dave.cridland.net/
> Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]