2011/7/11 The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx>: > The IESG has received a request from the BiDirectional or > Server-Initiated HTTP WG (hybi) to consider the following document: > - 'The WebSocket protocol' > <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> as a Proposed Standard Hi, I assume there is no interest in making DNS SRV mechanism exposed in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ibc-websocket-dns-srv-02 part of the WebSocket core specification, neither referencing it (in the same way RFC 3261 "SIP protocol" mandates the usage of RFC 3263 "Locating SIP servers"). As said before, making such DNS SRV specification an extension (so present in other document) will mean no success at all, as WebSocket client implementors (i.e. webbrowser vendors) will not be mandated to implement it and service providers could not rely on the support of DNS SRV in web browsers. So nobody will use them (because IE10 decided not to implement it, for example). IMHO this is sad due the real advantages DNS SRV provides for a protocol like WebSocket. Yes, in HTTP there is no special DNS stuff, all the load-balancing and failover mechanism are done at server side with very complex and expensive solutions (www.facebook.com resolves to a single IPv4 !!!!). The question is: should we also inherit every HTTP limitation in WebSocket? Thanks. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@xxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf