Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Wed, 07 January 2015 12:36 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4013B1A899E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 04:36:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id do2kbslRtE99 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 04:36:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A2E11A870C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 04:36:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1857; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1420634195; x=1421843795; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=0VSbdNBKoa0T2bDOK0SI8XdKcEWT+rAYr3jOSHpUxRM=; b=RBZkR7SIO7cdOQllrO8CPcauN/3JQ6Z76ArrGtuYsRr0U6zbWrrsnRhq mi+k6qud1R5u4C2tpF44LtNcGvVwZNAxGVno5zXdwbE1QPRryExNzVCo6 AN7RIl4MZYmzQsobT0/L+fVanjX2HHdpe18oLyMKiymfNm65/65y4pZwR s=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 486
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuwEAEwnrVStJssW/2dsb2JhbABcg1hYgwbDJ4V7AoFSAQEBAQF9hA0BAQQjVQEQCxgJFgQHAgIJAwIBAgFFBgEJAwEHAQGIKK8Fk0EBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXj3gHCYJfgUEBBI96gSlOhT2BDjCEUYU+hhcigjKBPT0xgkMBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,714,1413244800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="298338505"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Jan 2015 12:36:33 +0000
Received: from [10.61.103.253] (dhcp-10-61-103-253.cisco.com [10.61.103.253]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t07CaXMf017352; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 12:36:33 GMT
Message-ID: <54AD2850.5090905@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 13:36:32 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, =?UTF-8?B?TcOlbnMgTmlsc3Nvbg==?= <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard
References: <CAK3LatFh3ZU8ACk8grzLA9oCv2qqUHttz2z83b66xKnfs78mRA@mail.gmail.com> <54A7DBFC.8010800@cisco.com> <20150103143226.GC13599@besserwisser.org> <89DB2965-68B1-43D0-BBEB-FF49DB666A6D@frobbit.se> <54A81E9A.1020700@cisco.com> <20150103215310.D533D26FFFCD@rock.dv.isc.org> <54A8F75B.80007@cisco.com> <20150104122310.GF13599@besserwisser.org> <20150106000707.E3B7C2707D90@rock.dv.isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150106000707.E3B7C2707D90@rock.dv.isc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mXK1RlhiuU8aXCCcpjO4f8XMHl5IrPQ8n"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Jc7-pMI5yZFBF2QQ5vcaU8MJu28
Cc: Delan Azabani <delan@azabani.com>, ietf@ietf.org, =?UTF-8?B?UGF0cmlrIEbDpGx0c3Ryw7Zt?= <paf@frobbit.se>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 12:36:37 -0000

Hi Mark,

On 1/6/15 1:07 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Or one can delegate _http._tcp.example.net back to the
> servers for example.net or delegate it to the hosting
> provider and they can update the SRV records.
>

No doubt, and there are all sorts of other things one CAN do.  One
common configuration is for enterprise AD servers to be delegated _tcp
for any number of reasons.  Operationally this happens, and in large
sites it is not uncommon to see TCP-based queries because of it.  How
wide scale is the issue and is any performance hit acceptable?  That is
a fair question and difficult to answer.  It would be perfectly fine
with me if the WG had said, “ok, we'll just manage that delay; records
cache anyway.”  But that is not how discussions went.  Delay is
important.  But here again, I think we could use more analysis.  That
shouldn't hold up this draft, however.

Eliot