On Jul 24, 2011, at 12:33 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > In message <B2C17B21-EA8A-4698-8C41-F55A9AA140D4@xxxxxxxx>, "Roy T. Fielding" writes: >> On Jul 21, 2011, at 10:52 AM, I=F1aki 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. > > How do you solve the problem of hosting just "http://example.com/"; > on "s1.joes-web-service.com" and not redirect everything else at > example.com? People have been complaining about this for about as > long as the web has existed. The Web has existed in usable form since 1991. Name-based virtual hosting wasn't even possible until we added Host in 1995. In any case, nobody has ever asked me to make the above a priority -- it simply isn't a relevant problem compared to load balancing in general, and the general problem does not assume that the client is friendly. I would never try to "solve" load balancing by requiring every browser to make an additional (failed) DNS SRV request each time it encounters one of the 357,292,065 individual hostnames that are known to use HTTP, not to mention the many millions more that are not exposed on the Internet and don't even use DNS for resolution. HTTP would not, cannot, and never will benefit from SRV even if we had a magic wand that could deploy it on all browsers. SRV simply doesn't fit the Web architecture. ....Roy _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf