Masataka Ohta wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:
Where is a proof?
Sorry, I've a habit of using the word "proof" in the English
1) There are no SRV records.
2) Therefore browsers do not support them.
3) Therefore you'd need to allow for A-lookup as fallback for the
forseeable future.
4) Therefore there's no incentive for browsers to support SRV.
That's a perfect proof against IPv6 deployment. Infrastructure
won't be updated.
However, for application layers issues like SRV ones, thanks to
the end to end argument, only servers and clients need
upgrading without infrastructure changes, which is why major
application of the Internet changed from ftp to http.
Where is a proof? :)
A Major Application will offer all services necessary for the customer
to leverage. They are not going to eliminate ftp just because the
"developer" likes http better or whats customers to switch to http.
Even then, where I have seen a history of people using a http link, I
have also seen many changed back, if only to help balance or spread loads.
My personal technical input on SRV. It works when particular
applications needs them or have become dependent on them in order to
resolve connectivity. i.e. xmpp. But to me, there is an awful lot of
waste and redundant lookups just to resolve an uri. It would appear
to me for web sockets, due to its intended market place of returning
interactive I/O applications now over the web and specially mobile and
wireless networks, the less overhead the better.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf