Comment 105 for bug 308181

(In reply to comment #76)
> RFC2502bis referenced in the description has now been published:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2782

it's already in the title :-)

> Some internet-drafts related to SRV and DNS records:
> as mentioned above (expired):
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andrews-http-srv
>
> for determining transport - HTTP has been run over SCTP and TCP, IPv4 and v6;
> how would you know which to use? Possible methods include DNS record lookups
> and specifying the transport direct in the URI.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-natarajan-http-over-sctp
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yourtchenko-tran-announce-dns
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-http-new-tech
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wood-tae-specifying-uri-transports
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jennings-http-srv
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-faltstrom-uri

Thanks for the links. I have skimmed through the drafts and I don't see any advantage over SRV / rfc2782. Things like http+srv are a usability nightmare, others trying to implement something similar, but with less flexibility. rfc2782 is a simple and good standard.

I still wonder, why nobody is pushing this for firefox.