On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 01:42:26PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > 2011/7/23 Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com>: > >> Right. If WS borns with no SRV (as a MUST for WS clients) then just > >> forget it and let inherit all the ugly limitations from HTTP protocol. > > > > I am tired of this. SRV is not used for HTTP because SRV adds latency > > to the initial request for no useful purpose whatsoever. > > And I'm really tired of hearing the argument of the "latency" which > nobody demostrates (but just talks about it without replying me how > the same is not a problem in realtime protocols like SIP and XMPP).
Because you have never worked in a mobile phone environment. You'd be amazed to see what end users are paying for ! Count 300-500 ms on average for a DNS request. > > In contrast, HTTP is deployed in an anarchic > > manner in which there are often several HTTP servers per machine > > (e.g., tests, staging, production, CUPS, etc,). > > Could you explain me why DNS A is good but DNS SRV is bad in such > "anarchic" deployments? DNS is not mandatory for HTTP. It's not "DNS A" which makes it good, but "no mandatory DNS". This is a huge difference. Regards, Willy _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
