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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 03 January 2015 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 8D30B1A1A93 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 06:12:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_EQ_STATICB=1.372, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
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 n5Ha2w5TqeMN for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 06:12:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa3.jck.com (static-65-175-133-137.cpe.metrocast.net [65.175.133.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62C531A1A8F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 06:12:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hp5.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.153] helo=P5) by bsa3.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1Y7PRb-0002jc-Ks; Sat, 03 Jan 2015 09:12:43 -0500
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 09:12:38 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Delan Azabani <delan@azabani.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard
Message-ID: <AEE3A9C73AC6A1C6D6BFAD95@P5>
In-Reply-To: <54A7DBFC.8010800@cisco.com>
References: <CAK3LatFh3ZU8ACk8grzLA9oCv2qqUHttz2z83b66xKnfs78mRA@mail.gmail.com> <54A7DBFC.8010800@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/z7EbbFy34VF6LJG0hemOhvoWs5Q
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: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 14:12:49 -0000

One comment in addition to Eliot's, which while I generally
agree...


--On Saturday, 03 January, 2015 13:09 +0100 Eliot Lear
<lear@cisco.com> wrote:

>...
> On 1/2/15 9:29 AM, Delan Azabani wrote:

>...
>> HTTP is simultaneously important enough that one can't simply
>> run a single server for any popular application, but not so
>> important that it deserves to necessarily be the A/AAAA
>> record for every hostname.

If I understand the above part of your comments correctly, "one
A/AAAA record..." hasn't been necessary since HTTP 1.1
introduced the HTTP "host" verb.  That was a lesson we learned
from SMTP, FTP, and elsewhere -- virtual hosts should not
require separate (either physical or virtual) interfaces and
addresses.

That decision was made well before SRV records were sufficiently
deployed to be meaningful, but Eliot's point stands: there were
(and are) a number of complicated tradeoffs in this situation (I
don't think his list is complete, but both of you probably know
that), and the community made a rational decision about them.
Whether that decision should be reviewed today might be another
question, but the transition and deployment issues would
themselves become another tradeoff.

   john