On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 1 July 2014 23:22, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> Martin opened two similar issues:
>> <>
>>
>> ... regarding how to handle multiple advertised alternative services.
>>
>> Personally, I'm not sure we need to specify this (see my comments in the
issues).
>>
>> What do others think? Martin, any further thoughts?
>
>
> I think that we probably need to have text to clarify what each means,
> but it should be relatively simple:
>
> In both cases, I think that we can say that each advertisement of an
> alternative service adds a new alternative to the set of alternatives
> that is known to the client/recipient.
>
> Then, when multiple alternatives are present, we let the client choose
> the alternative it likes best.
>
> Existing alternatives can have properties altered by selecting based
> on the tuple [protocol, host, port] and providing new values for other
> attributes. Here I'm thinking that we enable forcibly expiring an
> alternative by adjusting max-age.
>
> I'm happy to provide a PR (or three) to this effect.
To me this sounds like a step back compared to DNS SRV records, which offer
priority, weight and ttl.
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 05:03:20 UTC