IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Thu, 20 February 2020 23:08 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
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 4A4FA12022D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:08:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] 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 Dau4ZiRfN_jZ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:08:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26A22120220 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:08:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from linux-9daj.localnet (dhcp-183.access.rits.tisf.net [24.104.150.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 12C91B074C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 23:08:40 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 23:07:29 +0000
Message-ID: <3957989.Z19ytmkxcd@linux-9daj>
Organization: none
In-Reply-To: <20200220221517.GA16177@isc.org>
References: <b34f1b0d-fa65-23d4-1b2b-761b965a2aae@knipp.de> <3ead518d-f166-1c36-c3e9-18aeb355d160@pletterpet.nl> <20200220221517.GA16177@isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/D8vG5VpEG24cyJ6HGUvBnteNA3o>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts
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: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 23:08:44 -0000

On Thursday, 20 February 2020 22:15:17 UTC Evan Hunt wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 09:29:31AM +0100, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
> > ANAME was supposed to solve the CNAME at the apex problem and mitigate
> > against DNS vendor lock in. Both SVCB and HTTPSSCV do not fix this
> > problem.
> 
> ...
> 
> If browser folks *are* doing something more sensible now, as appears to
> be the case, then we no longer have the problem ANAME was meant to solve,
> and I'm content to let it pass into history.

noting that i am about to ask the browser community to remove their port 
number from httpsvc, i otherwise agree entirely with evan's words above.

-- 
Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email