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

Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl> Thu, 20 February 2020 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <matthijs@pletterpet.nl>
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 077561200E6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 03:09:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 AfpXfxBIJubv for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 03:09:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lb2-smtp-cloud7.xs4all.net (lb2-smtp-cloud7.xs4all.net [194.109.24.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9691912001A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 03:09:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:980:4eb1:1:6ddd:374f:8431:5790] ([IPv6:2001:980:4eb1:1:6ddd:374f:8431:5790]) by smtp-cloud7.xs4all.net with ESMTPSA id 4jhVjXe4RjmHT4jhWjJGnc; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:09:03 +0100
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <b34f1b0d-fa65-23d4-1b2b-761b965a2aae@knipp.de> <CAG8jCEzO7zrfL5G5CzdJ=c5wipJgqqHfyeA-a3-QjquoyPYgvg@mail.gmail.com> <3ead518d-f166-1c36-c3e9-18aeb355d160@pletterpet.nl> <600215ff-3bfb-78b0-48fa-84a5dc71239f@time-travellers.org>
From: Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl>
Message-ID: <3ef40128-d6a5-f7a6-f7f8-d05e90ece668@pletterpet.nl>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:09:01 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <600215ff-3bfb-78b0-48fa-84a5dc71239f@time-travellers.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfP250BHHsVpSwlRI6LSFx8srP+EjT7QT5NTE71qGFhqR2DoBcyzvZHsAY+8y1cqdfk27TF0pZfJ5LvcV4kVw9yQCM2ICNEkZ74aQPD9i1Fy8Czjuxz1p CdHZ03KgmkNXR0icr9Pk2Nokj3FJoKvmBEmCn5Z8xOtLm18jM+6O1Kv/TI1ZjntfJFurMZfTlbHzuCV274Sq6jAyaITb2tYhGqmU1G5EsUTB1525ffUG2M/v 5uhHAqu9OJkAqN+OPp07tYWdXWoeYGzmZiz4jNMyTsM=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/GMfrNJ7v_m88v1aJZQVZSTFnx0o>
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 11:09:08 -0000

Shane,

There has been no discussions and no progress on ANAME since July 2019.
If ANAME is something that (part of) the working group wants to work on,
it requires more interaction, discussion to solve the final issues (see
the github page https://github.com/each/draft-aname/).

Best regards,
  Matthijs

On 2/20/20 10:59 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
> Matthijs,
> 
> On 20/02/2020 09.29, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/18/20 5:17 PM, Olli Vanhoja wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 16:20 Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de
>>> <mailto:Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>      I asked myself about the status of the two drafts. I got the
>>>      impression a little
>>>      bit that the svcb/httpsvc draft successfully killed the aname
>>> draft,
>>>      but is now
>>>      dying slowly itself. It would be great if somebody could give me
>>>      some insight
>>>      whether the one or the other has still a measurable heartbeat, to
>>>      stay with the
>>>      allegories ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> SVCB is active almost every day of the week in GitHub.
>>>
>>> I can't talk on behalf of the authors of the ANAME draft, but to me it
>>> seems that SVCB is getting more traction and it addresses the core
>>> problems that ANAME was supposed to solve.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> But yeah, the draft is pretty much dead due to lack of interest.
> 
> Is there a lack of interest? That's not clear to me. I think rather
> there are DNS folks who don't like ANAME for philosophical reasons and
> actively strive to prevent it moving forward.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- 
> Shane
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop