News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on HTTP/2.0 Initial Draft Released.

Re:HTTP/2.0 Initial Draft Released by inopinatus on Tuesday July 30, 2013 @05:16AM (#6125981)
Why didn't they use SRV[1] records in DNS to resolve http2 requests? It has so many advantages:

  * Permitted at the domain apex (yes really! unlike CNAMEs!)
  * Allow weighted round-robin
  * Allows lower-priority fallback services
  * Unusual port numbers no longer required in URIs
  * Doesn't get confused with non-HTTP services located at the same FQDN.
It's the modern way to federate services! And there's very wide DNS server support - everything from BIND to Active Directory.

Fortunately the standard (nor as far as I can see, the normative references) doesn't actually say you have to use an A-type record. Unfortunately that will remain the convention unless someone makes this easy but explicit change.

I'd get involved but I fear the politics. Would I have any chance of being able to advocate for this change?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRV_record

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:HTTP/2.0 Initial Draft Released by hobohacker on Tuesday July 30, 2013 @05:40AM (#6126035)
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=22423 discusses some of the issues with using SRV records in browsers.

SRV records could help clients discover server HTTP/2 support, but it does not mean that all intermediaries along the path support it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:HTTP/2.0 Initial Draft Released by inopinatus on Sunday August 04, 2013 @06:57AM (#6155257)
Kinda moot; that thread is a discussion of what happens if it isn't explicitly in the standard.
[ Parent | on HN ]