[teddyh]

Not the OP, but omitting support for SRV records in HTTP/2 was a terrible missed opportunity, as I’ve written about here before:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8404788

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8550133

I quote myself: “It really is no surprise that Google is not interested in this, since Google does not suffer from any of those problems which using SRV records for HTTP would solve. It’s only users which could more easily run their own web servers closer to the edges of the network which would benefit, not the large companies which has CDNs and BGP AS numbers to fix any shortcomings the hard way. Google has already done the hard work of solving this problem for themselves – of course they want to keep the problem for everybody else.”

[Shoothe]

I would also like to see SRV record support in HTTP/2 but IIRC Mozilla did some telemetry tests and found out that a significant amount of DNS requests for SRV records failed for no reason (or probably for reasons mentioned in this submission). Unfortunately I can't find a source link for that claim right now.

[teddyh]

I know of two rather large users of SRV records already: Minecraft servers and (the big one) Microsoft Office 365. I’m less than convinced that resolution of SRV records is that broken.

[Shoothe]

Do you mean accessing Office 365 via browser uses SRV records or something different?

[dylz]

o365 general services (lync skype, outlook, ... / exchange autodiscover) uses SRV a fair bit.

365 is not just the browser suite

[Shoothe]

Yeah but the services that you mentioned are used mostly by enterprises. It's still possible that SRV lookups are broken for large amount of consumers that are not enterprises.

[teddyh]

And I wonder who that could be, if that is even true.

[stock_toaster]

Yeah, I agree that this was a really unfortunate omission.