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

[John Bradley <jbradley@mac.com>]

Forwarded for David Orchard who will be a member shortly:)

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Peter Davis <peter.davis@neustar.biz> 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:peter.davis@neustar.biz">peter.davis@neustar.biz</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