SamePlace

Bug #308181
Comment #36

Comment 36 for bug 308181

Revision history for this message

In Mozilla Bugzilla #14328, Numbski (numbski) wrote on 2005-09-14:

#36

(In reply to comment #35)
> In my opinion SRV RRs should be supported by Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird/etc. in
> each case, no matter if there are performance questions or anything like this.
> The reson is: RFC2782 is a proposed standard according to the IETF.
>
> Are there any current developments regarding SRV RRs in Mozilla products?

I don't think there is, however just for grins, some pseudo-code for someone
familiar enough with the zilla sources, here are a pair of methods to give a try:

presuming someone has typed in a plain url of the type http://www.domain.tld,
which of course presumes port 80:

Rather than simply attempting to connect to www.domain.tld on port 80, first
attempt to get _http._tcp.www.domain.tld. Respect whatever is returned
(although to be honest, I'm not sure what happens at this point. I really
should try this from telnet sometime to see exactly what occurs here).

Second would be to see if there is a dns library floating around out there that
is lightweight and can handle srv records. When the user hits enter or clicks
the 'go' button, do an actual dns resolution before proceeding, again presuming
_http._tcp.www.domain.tld. Respect what is returned.

I believe the crux of the matter is timeouts. How long do you timeout on trying
srv's? If you go the second route and do a full name resolution and you get
valid srv data back before then reverting to traditional name resolution, I'd
then proceed with the correct priority site. Should that time out, then we
would stray from tradidition a bit. Rather than giving the usual timeout
message, give a new error:

"The requested page could not be retrieved, however the site has specified n
additional backup pages. Would you like to try the next one now?"
[Please take me to the next one.] [No, Thanks though.]
Don't ask me this again.[x]

Just a couple of thoughts on how to deal with it. The user experience wouldn't
be damaged in any way. The srv record timeouts could be adjusted through
about:config, and if done correctly an extension writer could probably extend
things a bit and make them prettier.

(In reply to comment #35)
> In my opinion SRV RRs should be supported by Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird/etc. in
> each case, no matter if there are performance questions or anything like this.
> The reson is: RFC2782 is a proposed standard according to the IETF.
> 
> Are there any current developments regarding SRV RRs in Mozilla products?

I don't think there is, however just for grins, some pseudo-code for someone
familiar enough with the zilla sources, here are a pair of methods to give a try:

presuming someone has typed in a plain url of the type http://www.domain.tld,
which of course presumes port 80:

Rather than simply attempting to connect to www.domain.tld on port 80, first
attempt to get _http._tcp.www.domain.tld.  Respect whatever is returned
(although to be honest, I'm not sure what happens at this point.  I really
should try this from telnet sometime to see exactly what occurs here).

Second would be to see if there is a dns library floating around out there that
is lightweight and can handle srv records.  When the user hits enter or clicks
the 'go' button, do an actual dns resolution before proceeding, again presuming
_http._tcp.www.domain.tld.  Respect what is returned.

I believe the crux of the matter is timeouts.  How long do you timeout on trying
srv's?  If you go the second route and do a full name resolution and you get
valid srv data back before then reverting to traditional name resolution, I'd
then proceed with the correct priority site.  Should that time out, then we
would stray from tradidition a bit.  Rather than giving the usual timeout
message, give a new error:

"The requested page could not be retrieved, however the site has specified n
additional backup pages.  Would you like to try the next one now?"
[Please take me to the next one.] [No, Thanks though.]
Don't ask me this again.[x]

Just a couple of thoughts on how to deal with it.  The user experience wouldn't
be damaged in any way.  The srv record timeouts could be adjusted through
about:config, and if done correctly an extension writer could probably extend
things a bit and make them prettier.