On Jul 22, 2011, at 4:51 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>
>
> 1) There are no SRV records.
>
> 2) Therefore browsers do not support them.
>
> 3) Therefore you'd need to allow for A-lookup as fallback for the forseeable
> future.
>
> 4) Therefore there's no incentive for browsers to support SRV.
On Jul 21, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2011/7/21 Dave Cridland :
>> It's proven impossible, despite effort, to retrofit SRV onto HTTP; there is
>> no way it'll be possible to retrofit onto WS.
>
> Right. If WS borns with no SRV (as a MUST for WS clients) then just
> forget it a
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:36:10PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Scott Schmit wrote:
>
> > _http._tcp.example.com. SRV 0 99 80 www.example.com.
> > _http._tcp.example.com. SRV 0 1 80 www-ds.example.com.
> > www.example.com. A 198.0.2.1
> > www-ds.example.com. A 198.0.2.2
> > www-ds.example.com. AA
I¹ve addressed the last call comments received on the list as well as some
comments on 05.txt that were received after the WG LC completed. The
response to specific comments are in a spreadsheet which can be found at
http://www.pi.nu/~loa/MPLS-TP-Identifiers_IETF_LC_Comments.xls
I¹ve also addres
Hi -
> From: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 3:16 AM
> Subject: Historic status (was Another look at 6to4 (and other IPv6
> transitionissues))
...
> And what could/should be done? I think, IESG and the whole community,
> cooperating with IAB, IRSG and ISE, should dete
Scott Schmit wrote:
> _http._tcp.example.com. SRV 0 99 80 www.example.com.
> _http._tcp.example.com. SRV 0 1 80 www-ds.example.com.
> www.example.com. A 198.0.2.1
> www-ds.example.com. A 198.0.2.2
> www-ds.example.com. 2001:db8::2
>
> I.e., content providers could control/measure their proba
In message <9031.1311328268.180517@puncture>, Dave Cridland writes:
> On Fri Jul 22 01:11:33 2011, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> > Dave Cridland wrote:
> >
> > > It's proven impossible, despite effort, to retrofit SRV onto HTTP;
> >
> > Where is a proof?
>
> Sorry, I've a habit of using the word "proo
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 07:34:49PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Dave Cridland wrote:
>
> >> Where is a proof?
> >
> > Sorry, I've a habit of using the word "proof" in the English
>
> > 1) There are no SRV records.
> > 2) Therefore browsers do not support them.
> > 3) Therefore you'd need to all
Dave Cridland wrote:
>> Where is a proof?
>
> Sorry, I've a habit of using the word "proof" in the English
> 1) There are no SRV records.
> 2) Therefore browsers do not support them.
> 3) Therefore you'd need to allow for A-lookup as fallback for the
> forseeable future.
> 4) Therefore there's
Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> Transitioning HTTPS to use SRV is complicated because of proxies.
>>> There needs to be changes to how clients talk to proxies for HTTPS
>>> + SRV to work through proxies.
>> CONNECT server.example.org:100 HTTP/1.1
>> Host: www.example.com
>
> I was referring to th
Noel and all,
The meaning of Historic has alway been a bit unclear. Neither 2026 nor
its predecessors say enough about this category for RFCs; particularly,
it fails to describe what are the procedures for moving RFCs to
Historic, whether one is allowed to publish documents directly to
Histo
On Fri Jul 22 03:24:41 2011, David Endicott wrote:
there are added inefficiencies. Also the name resolution of the
HTTP that
serves the Javascript that opens the WS should remain constant.
If WS
resolves the host/domain to a different address than the HTTP it
was spawned
from, it become
On Fri Jul 22 01:11:33 2011, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:
> It's proven impossible, despite effort, to retrofit SRV onto HTTP;
Where is a proof?
Sorry, I've a habit of using the word "proof" in the English (and
indeed Welsh) sense of "test" or "trial", rather than the
mathema
13 matches
Mail list logo
