4 ms·
So maybe we should define a DNS SRV record (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2782 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2782) for WWW, and work to get the browsers using
by dfawcus 7y ago
So maybe we should define a DNS SRV record (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2782 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2782) for WWW, and work to get the browsers using it?
e.g. _http._tcp.example.com and _https._tcp.example.com
It seems there was such a draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andrews-http-srv-02 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andrews-http-srv-02
- JdeBP 7y agoEnjoy http://jdebp.uk./FGA/dns-srv-record-use-by-clients.html#HTTP http://jdebp.uk./FGA/dns-srv-record-use-by-clients.html#HTTP and http://jdebp.uk./FGA/dns-srv-record-use-by-clients.html#Shame http://jdebp.uk./FGA/dns-srv-record-use-by-clients.html#Sham... .
- teddyh 7y agoSRV support seems to have been (unfairly, I think) rejected by HTTP vendors and standard bodies. There is a new standard, however, in the works: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-00 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc... This one might have a larger chance of being accepted, since it provides some things which HTTP standard bodies and HTTP client vendors want. It doesn’t (at this stage, anyway) provide for the load-balancing “weight” field from the SRV record, but it does support MX-style priority numbers, and also port numbers. Very interesting, to say the least.