On Jul 24, 2011, at 4:42 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > 2011/7/23 Roy T. Fielding <fielding@xxxxxxxx>: >>> 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. > > And I'm really tired of hearing the argument of the "latency" which > nobody demostrates (but just talks about it without replying me how > the same is not a problem in realtime protocols like SIP and XMPP). Try using a protocol analyzer. It is a problem with SIP and XMPP. Chat and telephony have different user expectations about the initial connect time, so people just don't notice it as much as they do when a web page rendering process stalls because embedded resources require two additional DNS requests. >> SRV records for >> XMPP and MX records for mail are useful because there is only one such >> server expected per domain > > $ host -t srv _xmpp-server._tcp.gmail.com > _xmpp-server._tcp.gmail.com has SRV record 5 0 5269 xmpp-server.l.google.com. > _xmpp-server._tcp.gmail.com has SRV record 20 0 5269 xmpp-server3.l.google.com. > _xmpp-server._tcp.gmail.com has SRV record 20 0 5269 xmpp-server2.l.google.com. > _xmpp-server._tcp.gmail.com has SRV record 20 0 5269 xmpp-server4.l.google.com. > _xmpp-server._tcp.gmail.com has SRV record 20 0 5269 xmpp-server1.l.google.com. > > No comments. I meant server as in authority to answer for the domain, of course. >> and it is *very* desirable to maintain central >> control over that routing. > > I don't know what this means. It means that admins care a great deal about what machines in the network are allowed to receive mail for that network, and likewise for XMPP, since both are store and forward protocols that contain messages with personal information for individual addresses which are routed on a hop-by-hop basis. HTTP has none of those characteristics. Hence, Mail and XMPP are centralized services for an entire domain, whereas HTTP services are specific to the services provided by each individual host. >> 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,). > > Could you explain me why DNS A is good but DNS SRV is bad in such > "anarchic" deployments? Because DNS A for a server is deployed as soon as the server is made available on the network (Intra or Inter). It is one of the first things done when installing an OS. SRV, in contrast, requires that the zone manager reconfigure DNS. >> AFAICT, WebSockets is >> even more anarchic than HTTP -- it will have to be, given that the sane >> network admins will block it by default. > > ------------------------ > It is up to the system administrator whether to set, or not, DNS SRV > resource records for the WebSocket protocol within the provided > service. This specification allows the system administrator to use > the DNS SRV [RFC2782] mechanism to improve the service reliability by > providing load-balancing and failover capabilities, but does not > mandate it (the system administrator could choose whichever > scalability strategy). > ------------------------ *shrug* >> 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. > > Ok, so the argument "I don't know SRV but I feel fine with HTTP > limitations for years" will win. Great design decissions. No, the argument is that I know SRV, I know a lot more about HTTP, and I know for a fact that SRV is not desirable for HTTP. So, whenever you suggest that lack of SRV is somehow a failing of HTTP, you should understand that it makes your arguments look clueless. Please, find some other example. ....Roy _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf