Re: [DNSOP] Fundamental ANAME problems

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Mon, 05 November 2018 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C2CA130DC2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 08:31:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l3hS6EqrHS4a for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 08:31:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (shaun.rfc1035.com [93.186.33.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EBCB127133 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 08:31:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-919c.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-919c.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.145.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2EB4A2420FDF; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 16:31:43 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <770d5dc8-b8a3-c1c3-553f-0e9504389750@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 16:31:41 +0000
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <92D0D0B8-16C0-4298-8E4A-34A3DBE048ED@rfc1035.com>
References: <CAH1iCirXYsYB3sAo8f1Jy-q4meLmQAPSFO-7x5idDufdT_unXQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811021543210.24450@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20181105083526.GA12204@besserwisser.org> <7704C350-256A-42E3-B718-38FD449A2ADE@hopcount.ca> <770d5dc8-b8a3-c1c3-553f-0e9504389750@bellis.me.uk>
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/4i-pxoPTIbp8us5H07oMt4t0KF8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fundamental ANAME problems
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 16:31:49 -0000


> On 5 Nov 2018, at 15:38, Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>; wrote:
> 
> The cost to the DNS community of *trying* my proposed HTTP record is pretty negligible.  Worst case, as Brian put it, is we burn a code point, add a trivial amount of code to DNS servers, but the browsers don't adopt it.  It wouldn't be the first time, it won't be the last.

I think this is worth a punt. The risks/costs are low and the benefits are more than worth it.