On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:43:58AM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > 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). That's where I think you're mistaken. As long as you think of it as mandatory this will not be possible. When you think of it as optional and with an added value, then you will progressively see clients adopt it and make use of it. Since the beginning, you're proposing the option as mandatory "just because" and not for a perceivable added value by both sides. The downsides then outweigh the benefits. But maybe the benefits do not really exist after all, otherwise a valid attractive proposal would already have been made by the time we spent discussing it. > > - 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). Once again, if you expect *all* HTTP proxies to be able to do that, your proposal fails. If you expect that at least *some* HTTP proxies will be able to do that with a benefit, then something is possible. Let me repeat it, technologies are adopted, not forced on users. > > 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. Probably that starting by enumerating in a draft the benefits it could bring would be a good start. You seem to be very well convinced that there are benefits, so you're probably one of the few persons able to start such a draft. Regards, Willy _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf