2011/7/26 Willy Tarreau <w@xxxxxx>: > if you want to have any chance of making SRV *usable* with WS (or > HTTP), you have to motivate both sides by showing them that : > - it's better for them to use it than not to use it (both servers and > browsers) > - the additional cost of using it is negligible > - there are no issues with not using it These are godd points, but I never wanted to propose SRV for HTTP as I consider it's just unfeasible at this time (take into account the ammount of HTTP clients in the world, as browsers, libraries in any language and so on). > - leaving the choices to the intermediaries will not cause disruptions This last point is hard to accomplish (I'm just talking about SRV for WS, not for HTTP) because HTTP proxies should be capable of determining that a GET request is in fact a WS handshake, and *just* in that case perform SRV procedures over the domain (assuming that there won't be SRV in the old, anti-fashion and technologically limited HTTP world). > I'm pretty sure that can be done, but clearly not the way it's been > presented till now. If the requeriment for including SRV in WS is also including it in HTTP then I surrender. I don't think it will never happen, neither I'm an expert in HTTP for such kind of proposal. Thanks a lot. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@xxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf