In message b2c17b21-ea8a-4698-8c41-f55a9aa14...@gbiv.com, Roy T. Fielding
writes:
On Jul 21, 2011, at 10:52 AM, I=F1aki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/21 Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net:
It's proven impossible, despite effort, to retrofit SRV onto HTTP; there=
is
no way it'll be possible
On Fri Jul 22 06:43:45 2011, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Iñaki, what we're saying is that the resolving applies first to HTTP
well before it is WS. For instance, a client could connect to an
HTTP
server, fetch a few objects, then decide to upgrade the connection
to
switch to WebSocket. DNS
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Thu Jul 21 18:18:31 2011, David Endicott wrote:
It is my opinion that name resolution (however done) is outside the
purview
of WS. It may be handled in any number of ways by the client, and must
happen *before* WS establishes it's TCP connection and begins
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 allow for A-lookup as fallback for the
forseeable future.
4) Therefore
Dear All
I nead documentations about DNS et IPv6 architecture and implémentation
Thanks
AMADOU OUABANAIZE Sidi Ali
Ingénieur d'Etat en Informatique
Enseignant à l'Université de Tahoua
BP:256 Tahoua (Niger)
Cel: +22796893540 / +22794025704 / +22790385974
On Jul 24, 2011, at 4:42 AM, 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
On Jul 24, 2011, at 12:33 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message b2c17b21-ea8a-4698-8c41-f55a9aa14...@gbiv.com, Roy T. Fielding
writes:
On Jul 21, 2011, at 10:52 AM, I=F1aki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/21 Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net:
It's proven impossible, despite effort, to retrofit SRV
* Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Open the fastest web page and tell me how long it takes.
Too long.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ·
Hey Alexey,
Thanks for following up. A couple of responses inline.
--Richard
[Is GET/Upgrade appropriate?]
It seems like the use of GET here goes beyond the normal safe semantics
for that method. To quote RFC 2616:
In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and
Greetings all,
First off, welcome to Quebec City!
The network here at the Quebec City Convention Center is up and running.
Full network information is available at:
http://noc.meeting.ietf.org/wiki/IETF81network
We were able to extend the IETF network to the Hilton (thanks to a brand
new
Dear colleagues,
At IETF-80 in Prague, there was a call for volunteers to be an
occasional scribe for the IAOC and IETF Trust. Until the IETF-81
meeting, I was one of the three people who produce the minutes for the
IAOC and Trust; but I can't continue to do it because of some
conflicting
On Sun Jul 24 19:59:49 2011, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 08:30:11PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/24 John Tamplin j...@google.com:
~100 ms (if the DNS server is not local and there is no DNS
cache for
the given domain). And just during the WS connection, no
[ should we leave ietf@ietf.org in CC or not ? I'm suspecting that people
who read this address will quickly get bored by hybi traffic ]
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:35:45AM +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
You're saying that you have a nebulous connection thing, that you
pump HTTP requests down,
Hi Mark,
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 05:33:23PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message b2c17b21-ea8a-4698-8c41-f55a9aa14...@gbiv.com, Roy T. Fielding
writes:
On Jul 21, 2011, at 10:52 AM, I=F1aki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/21 Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net:
It's proven impossible,
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 01:26:53PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/22 Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu:
Iñaki, what we're saying is that the resolving applies first to HTTP
well before it is WS. For instance, a client could connect to an HTTP
server, fetch a few objects, then decide to
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 01:47:36PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/24 Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu:
No I'm not saying that because I don't understand what you mean here.
What I'm saying is that browsers try to reuse existing connections to
host:port. So if you want to connect to
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
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo i...@aliax.net wrote:
2011/7/22 David Endicott dendic...@gmail.com:
The technological advantages are worthy, when it's used, but when it
doesn't
come into play, there are added inefficiencies.
~100 ms (if the DNS server is not local and
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 08:25:05PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/24 Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu:
Making an additional DNS request and a connection come with a cost.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ibc-websocket-dns-srv-02#section-5.2
You still need the DNS request : the client
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 08:24:25PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Yes it has. Either you open a fresh new connection, or you reuse an
idle existing one.
If the WS URI points to a different server, it's perfectly possible
that the WS connection has nothing to do (neither cookies usage)
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 08:28:49PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/24 Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu:
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
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 08:30:11PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/24 John Tamplin j...@google.com:
~100 ms (if the DNS server is not local and there is no DNS cache for
the given domain). And just during the WS connection, no more. Taking
into account that a WS will be *usually*
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 08:52:32PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Ok. But I don't see the problem. What about Google Apps? My own domain
uses Gtalk and Gmail by setting Google XMPP SRV and MX records. Now
imagine that I would host my personal webpage (domain www.aliax.net)
in Google,
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 08:57:45PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/24 Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu:
Also, if the user realizes that the connection takes too much time and
presses F5 to reload the page, why couldn't the webbrowser cache the
SRV results and mark the previous attemp as
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 09:02:59PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/24 Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu:
But that's not what I meant, I meant that DNS is not the only solution
to resolve host names. WINS, NIS and /etc/hosts are usable too. When I
was a student in 94, we had all our
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 09:18:40PM +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
Open the fastest web page and tell me how long it takes. Probably
you
have performed a DNS A query. I don't think that a xtra DNS query
would be the bottleneck, never.
On lossy networks such as 3G, they definitely are. A
Hector Santos wrote:
A Major Application will offer all services necessary for the customer
to leverage. They are not going to eliminate ftp just because the
developer likes http better or whats customers to switch to http. Even
then, where I have seen a history of people using a http
Folks, please note that the APPSAREA session has been rescheduled to
Monday morning at 09:00 (the slot formerly occupied by the HTTP-AUTH BoF).
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Willy Tarreau wrote:
Ok, but I don't consider a xtra DNS query to be so hard.
I had to perform sites analysis for a customer a few months ago. Many
web pages nowadays have between 100 and 200 objects to fetch, spread
over up to 25-30 host names.
How long does it take to fetch all the
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On lossy networks such as 3G, they definitely are. A lost UDP packet is
not retransmitted nor signaled as lost, so the browser has to retry. However,
once the connection is established to the server, most losses are more or
less smoothed by TCP extensions such as SACK. So
Willy Tarreau wrote:
But we have to keep in mind that for SRV to work, it cannot be made
mandatory because existing infrastructure simply does not support it.
Such argument is valid at the IP, the infrastructure, layer where
IPv6 is to work but is not applicable at the application layer
where
In message 20110724183343.gy22...@1wt.eu, Willy Tarreau writes:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 08:25:05PM +0200, I=F1aki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/24 Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu:
Making an additional DNS request and a connection come with a cost.
In message 20110724193230.ge22...@1wt.eu, Willy Tarreau writes:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 09:02:59PM +0200, I=F1aki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/24 Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu:
But that's not what I meant, I meant that DNS is not the only solution
to resolve host names. WINS, NIS and
[I haven't been following hybi and haven't read the draft, but as this is
posted to the ietf list and there are a bunch of assertions here about the DNS
I consider ... odd, I thought I'd chime in]
On Jul 24, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
A lost UDP packet is not retransmitted nor
On Jul 24, 2011, at 3:33 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
How do you solve the problem of hosting just http://example.com/;
on s1.joes-web-service.com and not redirect everything else at
example.com? People have been complaining about this for about as
long as the web has existed.
Well, in a way,
In message CABLsOLD-KM6DnR8HvfGH8N1M=1bz4z8zus0ydczaxsfocbq...@mail.gmail.com
, John Tamplin writes:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Adding a SRV lookup should add 0ms if it isn't there as you should be
making A, and SRV lookups in parallel.
In message 4b3c19fd-b736-4da7-9db5-3d433320d...@network-heretics.com, Keith M
oore writes:
On Jul 24, 2011, at 3:33 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
How do you solve the problem of hosting just http://example.com/;
on s1.joes-web-service.com and not redirect everything else at
example.com?
On Jul 24, 2011, at 11:21 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
How do you solve the problem of hosting just http://example.com/;
on s1.joes-web-service.com and not redirect everything else at
example.com? People have been complaining about this for about as
long as the web has existed.
Well, in a way,
In message 3bc48562-6459-4fb9-9806-731af87fe...@network-heretics.com, Keith M
oore writes:
On Jul 24, 2011, at 11:21 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
How do you solve the problem of hosting just http://example.com/;
on s1.joes-web-service.com and not redirect everything else at
example.com?
In message 20110725042921.gj22...@1wt.eu, Willy Tarreau writes:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:46:58AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
Adding a SRV lookup should add 0ms if it isn't there as you should be
making A, and SRV lookups in parallel.
This does not work for a simple reason : you have
Dear Colleagues,
The IAB (on behalf of the IETF) has been asked to supply a representative to
the ICANN Nomcom by 15 August 2011. We would therefore like to ask the
community for volunteers to serve on the 2012 ICANN Nomcom. If you are
interested, please send a short e-mail to i...@iab.org
41 matches
Mail list logo
