SRV resource records and web browsers

[Mark Andrews]

> BM> The only advantage that the suggestion of "fixing CNAMEs" has 
> BM> over this is that there are far fewer servers than browsers, 
> BM> so it could be easier to phase in that sort of change.
> 
> It's not quite as clear cut as that.  At least one popular web browsing 
> software has the capability of being automatically upgraded with updates that
>  
> are published by its manufacturer, which a significant number of its users 
> take advantage of (and have even been pressured, by events, to take 
> advantage of in recent years).  It would not be _that_ hard to roll out to 
> a reasonably large number of users an updated version of that browser that 
> used "SRV" resource records.  No DNS server software manufacturer has an 
> equivalent mechanism for rolling out updated versions of its DNS server 
> software.
> 
> BM> _www._tcp.www.mycompany.com. IN SRV 0 1 80 server.hostingcompany.com.
> 
> _www-http._tcp.example.com. 86400 IN SRV 0 0 80 hosting.example.net.
> 
> by strict reading of STD 2 and RFC 2782.

IANA has the following in port assignments which forms part of the
current version of STD 2:

http             80/tcp    World Wide Web HTTP
http             80/udp    World Wide Web HTTP
www              80/tcp    World Wide Web HTTP
www              80/udp    World Wide Web HTTP
www-http         80/tcp    World Wide Web HTTP
www-http         80/udp    World Wide Web HTTP

Going backwards in time you have.

RFC 1700:
   www-http         80/tcp    World Wide Web HTTP
   www-http         80/udp    World Wide Web HTTP

RFC 1340:
   www		    80/tcp    World Wide Web HTTP		   [TXL]
   www		    80/udp    World Wide Web HTTP		   [TXL]