To www or not www

Re:To www or not www by teddyh on Saturday March 18, 2017 @06:21PM (#13903800)

The HTTP 2 standard must include provisions for SRV records to be used, since that is part of how clients should follow a URL. Additionally, the SRV specification itself says that a protocolspecification must say that SRV record should be used before any client of that protocol takes it upon itself to use SRV records.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:To www or not www by detaro on Sunday March 19, 2017 @09:41AM (#13907001)

The most explicit reference to name resolution I know of in any of the HTTP standards is RFC 7230 Section 2.7.1 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-2.7.1), which is still quite vague:

[...] If host is a registered name, the registered name is an indirect identifier for use with a name resolution service, such as DNS, to find an address for that origin server.

[...]

When an "http" URI is used within a context that calls for access to the indicated resource, a client MAY attempt access by resolving the host to an IP address, establishing a TCP connection to that address on the indicated port, and sending an HTTP request message (Section 3) containing the URI's identifying data (Section 5) to the server.

I don't think that excludes SRV-based name resolution. Some sort of standardization of course would be helpful, even if just for reference, but that could in my mind be an independent document recommending to use SRV instead for HTTP, without any detail about the version (since HTTP 2 has no property that makes it more or less fit for use with SRV records than 1.1). Adding something that's totally unclear if it ever will see any use to HTTP2 just because seems worse.

[ Parent | on HN ]