Comment 40 for bug 308181
Revision history for this message
|
|
#40 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
73416ba
(Get the code!)
(In reply to comment #39)
> personally, this whole thing seems very annoying. i don't feel like reading the
> rfc, but i would like a basic specification that explains what to do when:
> 1. there's no SRV record
> 2. there are 20 alternates in the SRV record and all of them are bad.
> 3. general cases in between.
To be frank, "seems very annoying" and "don't feel like reading the rfc" seems like a pretty poor attitude to take. If you don't want to take the time to form an educated opinion on the bug, no less perform any work on it, that's certainly your right, but if that's going to be the case, why not just leave it alone?
Anyway, to answer these three questions:
1) If there's no SRV record, everything works as it does now, you look up an address record and make the request.
2) This exact case is not addressed in RFC2782 or Mark Andrews' HTTP SRV draft. I would see two possibilities - either the normal "this request timed out" error is displayed immediately, or a fallback to the standard A record / port 80 behavior takes place. I think the former would be more "correct", as specification of an SRV record says "if you speak SRV, you should use this".
3) I'm not sure what you mean by general cases in between.
If there are any developers out there interested in implementing this functionality (to be contributed back to Mozilla, if it will be accepted) under contract, please contact me off-bug, as my company is interested in sponsoring this work.