Hi Mark, On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 05:33:23PM +1000, 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. I would say that people complaining about this are doing the wrong thing first. We've been using www.domain.tld, ftp.domain.tld, mail.domain.tld, ns.domain.tld for ages, each indicating the service in their host name, and suddenly just because www.domain.tld appears in the browser's address bar, it should be shortened to show only "domain.tld". If people are doing this, they must assume their choices. Sure, SRV would make that easier for them, but it's not as if no solution had existed before. Regards, Willy _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf