IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Fri, 24 February 2012 02:55 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73E2B11E80A2; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:55:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.443
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.156, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mbHTpUAcGEoB; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:55:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08A1E21F8661; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:54:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77264C9468; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 02:54:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:968:e107:e473:6b83]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 26E62216C31; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 02:54:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F1A1DC6AEB; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:54:33 +1100 (EST)
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20120221181006.43AB121F87BF@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F46BFDF.3070703@dougbarton.us>
Subject: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:38:23 -0800." <4F46BFDF.3070703@dougbarton.us>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:54:32 +1100
Message-Id: <20120224025433.00F1A1DC6AEB@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Cc: mnot@mnot.net, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 02:55:05 -0000

In message <4F46BFDF.3070703@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
> For my money it would be quite important for an HTTP 2.0 definition to
> make SRV DNS records a full-fledged participant in the standard. Minimum
> once a month there is someone asking for help on bind-users@ for which
> the answer is, "The solution to that _would_ be SRV records, if they
> were supported."
> 
> 2782 was published 12 years ago this month. I suppose it can be
> considered mature enough to deploy at this point? :)

+1000

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email