On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 08:07:25AM +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote: > My feedback to Andrew when he presented this to me was that: > > - In general I am nervous of moving HTTP header attributes into the > DNS, as it might create inconsistencies when for example the data in > DNS do not match what is in the HTTP header, and we already have a > content-negotiation mechanism in HTTP If anything, it may not provide the optimization that's desired. (Any numbers?) > - Given experience with length of URI / text fields in DNS, I would > have had the encoding of RDATA as "flag" "flag" "flag" "uri" (while > being nervous over the size restrictions of the URI...which is the > reason in URI the uri is all of RDATA except the weight and > priority). +1 > - I am also nervous over the size of the RRSet, i.e. same issue I see > with NAPTR, and the reason why I added the prefix (like SRV) to the > URI RR In for a penny, in for a pound. Nico --