> As said before, making such DNS SRV specification an extension (so > present in other document) will mean no success at all, as WebSocket > client implementors (i.e. webbrowser vendors) will not be mandated to > implement it and service providers could not rely on the support of > DNS SRV in web browsers. So nobody will use them (because IE10 decided > not to implement it, for example). IMHO this is sad due the real > advantages DNS SRV provides for a protocol like WebSocket. > > Yes, in HTTP there is no special DNS stuff, all the load-balancing and > failover mechanism are done at server side with very complex and > expensive solutions (www.facebook.com resolves to a single IPv4 !!!!). > The question is: should we also inherit every HTTP limitation in > WebSocket?
+1 It is little the effort for web browser implementors and will provide lot of benefits to end users and developers which would be able to provide scalable/configurable services easily. I'm with Iñaki: its usage must be mandatory to really make it available in all browsers... _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
