On 05/20/2014 12:12 AM, David C Lawrence wrote: > > Looking at a random high-traffic DNS server on our network, I see > practically no use at all of _http._tcp SRV requests. Over 6 days of > logs on this machine, they are just over 0.00007% of all requests. > (Yes, that decimal point is right.) Exactly 90% of them are for the > same hostname, with a name that implies to me that one application, > not a web browser, is responsible for all of them. >
That's technically 0.00007% too many, as the SRV RFC specifically mentions not to use it for protocols if there's isn't a document stating how to exactly use it with that protocol (mainly, as Ohta-san already mentioned, what to do with apparent data conflicts and a security considerations section), so right now browsers are not supposed to use SRV for http requests. That certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't go forwards and try to introduce such a document together with the http people. I never did find out why Mark's proposal didn't take. Regardless of whether we should go forwards with ENAME, btw. I think having SRV for http would be nice anyway. Jelte _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
