Re: draft-newton-link-rr (was Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource) Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record) to Proposed Standard

[Patrik Fältström <[e-mail]>]

> On 27 feb 2015, at 21:37, Nico Williams <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 08:07:25AM +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> My feedback to Andrew when he presented this to me was that:
>> 
>> - In general I am nervous of moving HTTP header attributes into the
>>  DNS, as it might create inconsistencies when for example the data in
>>  DNS do not match what is in the HTTP header, and we already have a
>>  content-negotiation mechanism in HTTP
> 
> If anything, it may not provide the optimization that's desired.  (Any
> numbers?)

Ok, to go back in history, this is why I originally did believe more in Gopher than Web... :-)

I though a proper negotiation would be to know already in the source of a referral what kind of data the target was. This was how Gopher worked, but Web was different. The link was (is) neutral and the negotiation happens at the target.

I did tell this to Tim, just like my view that HTML would have more TeX features like the ability to have "boxes" like various fills. He ignored me -- and I am happy for that!!!!

That story, early 1990's, gave me the lesson that the "correct" solutions do not always win. The "best" solution wins.

:-)

And this is the reason I am nervous over "gopher like features" in DNS. Even though I think it is good...I think it will loose...

   Patrik