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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Sun, 04 January 2015 08:18 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 4C4E01A7000 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 00:18:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 y7vv68EsK7sM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 00:18:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F8371A6FFF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 00:18:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1279; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1420359521; x=1421569121; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=GWGHxSfiqD3oJXi1sJgdjbZXkiYxVn3Gcny8Hdiu/Bo=; b=egBB0eful9rM7lq+OKW/XZO5XI9BgAgr6+xaVU9ZrkmUJNBaI8Tohkl2 lrHn1QTl9Bxn6RRKUu6aBJvmmG1R1XmoUee3PpKvypEzOYIuZ+eBWSBdu ogJcwi0d6x4yh4PvbS2EPaUqrjSE/KQG949RVCKDjNT8/n1ndJ6JBTAz5 4=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 486
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aq4EAMj2qFStJssW/2dsb2JhbABcg1iDXckGAoEbAQEBAQF9hA0BAQMBI1YQCyEaBwICDwJGBgoDAQcBAYggCKkxk0cBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGY93B4JogUEBBI9ggSeGAYENhHeIE4M5IoIygT09gnQBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,694,1413244800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="299184532"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Jan 2015 08:18:38 +0000
Received: from [10.61.76.74] (ams3-vpn-dhcp3146.cisco.com [10.61.76.74]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t048IakP029438; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 08:18:36 GMT
Message-ID: <54A8F75B.80007@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 09:18:35 +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>
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>
In-Reply-To: <20150103215310.D533D26FFFCD@rock.dv.isc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nGKTQkXQvl5ixuWLH7o8UCl7ARbKchAcM"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XFQySwsqSAMXMzOR14OlanSdvOo
Cc: Delan Azabani <delan@azabani.com>, =?UTF-8?B?TcOl?= =?UTF-8?B?bnMgTmlsc3Nvbg==?= <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>, 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: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 08:18:42 -0000

On 1/3/15 10:53 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:

>
> SRV doesn't require lots of parallel DNS queries.  I suspect in
> most cases there would be a single SRV record pointing to the hosting
> service.  

Again, a lot of enterprises in particular cut the zone at _tcp, and so
you can't do authoritative responses in your additional data.