On Jul 21, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > 2011/7/21 Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> It's proven impossible, despite effort, to retrofit SRV onto HTTP; there is >> no way it'll be possible to retrofit onto WS. > > Right. If WS borns with no SRV (as a MUST for WS clients) then just > forget it and let inherit all the ugly limitations from HTTP protocol. I am tired of this. SRV is not used for HTTP because SRV adds latency to the initial request for no useful purpose whatsoever. SRV records for XMPP and MX records for mail are useful because there is only one such server expected per domain and it is *very* desirable to maintain central control over that routing. In contrast, HTTP is deployed in an anarchic manner in which there are often several HTTP servers per machine (e.g., tests, staging, production, CUPS, etc,). AFAICT, WebSockets is even more anarchic than HTTP -- it will have to be, given that the sane network admins will block it by default. In short, SRV is not used by the Web because it is inappropriate for HTTP. I have seen no reason to believe that it would be appropriate for WebSockets. If you want SRV to be part of the proposed standard, then you have to convince the people implementing WS to use SRV. None have done so, yet, so we can't expect the editor to add it to the spec just because you have an opinion. ....Roy _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf