On 2016-01-19, at 10:24, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm feeling a little doughy after a long day of staring at logs. Is this idea to allow folk to mint a URL like "http://example.com:foo/"; and have the UA use example.com's DNS to look up what port 'foo' is? Yes. > Presumably because example.com is running a server on some random port, which speaks a particular protocol-over-HTTP. Other folk might know that the protocol-over-HTTP is 'foo', but not know what random port it's served over on this machine at this time. Correct. And service names are assigned FCFS, since there are many more than port numbers. > I like the idea of avoiding a query to a mundane (non-foo-speaking) web server whose whole purpose is just to tell you where to go to speak 'foo', or even the need to have such a thing. That is exactly the downside I see with the .well-known approach. > Can DNS-SD tell you what path to query (along with server and port), in case the foo-speaking part of the server is nested within the regular port-80 web server? I'm not sure. But would you even need that? You can just make foo resolve to 80. > I also like that it means you don't have to split up your 'foo' (most of it served on port :foo, but some running on port :80 under /.well-known/) Yep. Lars
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail