Re: [xri] Designating DNS discovery for non-HTTP URIs

From
John Bradley <>
Date
2009-01-09T23:06:27+00:00
ID
Thread
Re: [xri] Designating DNS discovery for non-HTTP URIs
Forwarded for David Orchard who will be a member shortly:)
 

 On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Peter Davis <> wrote:
 
 > On Jan 7, 2009, at 6:40 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
 >
 >  There seems to be strong resistance in various communities to the idea
 >> that
 >> an HTTP server can speak authoritatively for non-HTTP URIs. There is also
 >> strong resistance to using DNS as the entry point for resource discovery.
 >> At
 >> the same time, it is clear we need to support non-HTTP URIs and there is
 >> strong desire to include a DNS flavor.
 >>
 >
 > Can you provide any references to where this resistance is occurring?
 >
 
 I would also like to see references for such resistance.  I think as soon
 you as you go from HTTP to HTTP + DNS, people are rightfully going to start
 asking about their favourite protocol, such as XMPP, BEEP, WS-*, SIP, etc.
 
 I think there needs to be compelling evidence to support such a
 complication.  Every thing we can possibly remove from V1 only helps achieve
 interoperability by reducing features, especially optional ones.
 
 Cheers,
 Dave
 
 

------=_Part_93232_29383470.1231536466121
 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 Content-Disposition: inline
 
 <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Peter Davis <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:"></a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
 <div class="Ih2E3d">On Jan 7, 2009, at 6:40 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:<br>
 <br>
 <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
 There seems to be strong resistance in various communities to the idea that<br>
 an HTTP server can speak authoritatively for non-HTTP URIs. There is also<br>
 strong resistance to using DNS as the entry point for resource discovery. At<br>
 the same time, it is clear we need to support non-HTTP URIs and there is<br>
 strong desire to include a DNS flavor.<br>
 </blockquote>
 <br></div>
 Can you provide any references to where this resistance is occurring?<br>
 </blockquote><div><br>I would also like to see references for such resistance.&nbsp; I think as soon you as you go from HTTP to HTTP + DNS, people are rightfully going to start asking about their favourite protocol, such as XMPP, BEEP, WS-*, SIP, etc.<br>
 <br>I think there needs to be compelling evidence to support such a complication.&nbsp; Every thing we can possibly remove from V1 only helps achieve interoperability by reducing features, especially optional ones.<br><br>Cheers,<br>
 Dave <br></div></div><br>
 
 ------=_Part_93232_29383470.1231536466121--
 

smime.p7s