DNS resolution is not a function of a transport protocol. DNS SRV has no special association with WS. It is my opinion that this would be additional cruft that is only marginally related to the purpose and function of websockets. It does not address a general use case. DNS SRV applies only to a (small?) subset of server-side implementations. It is a good and useful mechanism, but I do not believe it should be tied tightly to websockets, nor included as part of the core spec.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2011/7/19 Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Hi, I assume there is no interest in making DNS SRV mechanism exposedUnfortunaltely it seems that the debate about DNS SRV support does not
>> 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?
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with this, and strongly recommend that mandatory use
> of SRV is included in the core protocol.
>
> I think with HTTP's very short lived requests, then it's possible to work
> around the lack of SRV support (at a cost), but the benefit is markedly
> higher with the long-lived, stateful sessions we're anticipating with
> WebSocket.
interest to the core WG authors. I would like, at least, to receive
good arguments not to include/mandate DNS SRV support in the draft. If
not, the proposal is just being ignored with no reason.
Regards.
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf