2011/7/21 David Endicott <dendicott@xxxxxxxxx>: > Do they? A http uri and a ws uri have the same host/path construction. > It's really only the scheme that differs - and that identifies the > transport protocol to be used. Resolution of host name/addresses and > mapping of paths "should" be consistent. > WS is a connection that is semantically related to the URI of the request. > > e.g. I could ws://host/davesaid and get live traffic of what Dave is > saying, and then I could ws://host/bobsaid and get traffic of what Bob > says. I wouldn't get Bob on /davesaid and I wouldn't get Dave on /bobsaid. > Dynamic content identified by a URI > And if I http://host/davesaid I could get a <li> of what Dave said. > Static content of a URI. > It could be problematic if ws://host/davesaid resolves to a different > address than http://host/davesaid. (Or it could be advantage - not for > us to decide, however) David, this does not make sense at all. Let see this case: a) mailto:alice@xxxxxxxxxx b) xmpp:alice@xxxxxxxxxx c) sip:alice@google,com d) http://google.com e) ws://google.com Do you really expect that all those URI's should point to the same server??? not, right? then, why e) should behave like d)? And of course, protocols defining a kind of URI (specific for such protocol) CAN and probably MUST also define how to locate such URI destination. In case of http just poor A/AAAA is done, but in other cases we all do know that other kind of DNS queries are done. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@xxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf