On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:19:30PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > Well, I understand (and agree) most of your text, but I still think > that the URI resolution mechanism is something transparent for an > end-user. This is not like having FlashPlayer for showing annoying and > dancing menus in a web page XD. End-users ask for FlashPlayer (and > Android 2.3 has included it for example) but end-users won't ask for > "SRV procedures". They won't "ask for", but when some sites pretend "we work better with", then they'll ask for the techno to use the site better. It's similar to the HTTP/1.0 or 1.1, keep-alive and pipelining that you can enable in your browser. Most users won't play with it, still that's pretty configurable. Similarly end users can decide to enable/disable IPv6 or IDN. > I would translate your arguments to "web developers", those who want > to provide scalable systems and for which having some kind of QoS > mechanisms (specially for mobile devices) is a great advantage. Of > course, if this happens then end-users would be happier :) I think you got it :-) Willy _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf