IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-02.txt

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Tue, 10 March 2020 19:11 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 BA03B3A092A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 o27MTerg_F2q for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 196A23A0956 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux-9daj.localnet (dhcp-182.access.rits.tisf.net [24.104.150.182]) (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 EDE31B074A; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 19:11:13 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 19:11:12 +0000
Message-ID: <1666213.8T7yPLhL8P@linux-9daj>
Organization: none
In-Reply-To: <3c380695-3759-37a6-2e1b-55eabe141f6d@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <158378460735.5647.5593000704951647849@ietfa.amsl.com> <5178521.krJMapVEJW@linux-9daj> <3c380695-3759-37a6-2e1b-55eabe141f6d@cs.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/GmE5QV8XWKdXFwfb7nLvewHKNBA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-02.txt
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: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 19:11:23 -0000

On Tuesday, 10 March 2020 19:05:39 UTC Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Paul,
> 
> ...
> 
> What's the difference between having a port number
> as part of HTTPSSVC (or whatever we call it;-) in
> the DNS and having a web page on 443 that includes
> hrefs with https:// schemed URLs that are not using
> port 443?

technically, very little. practically, one of them doesn't solve the problem 
addressed by ANAME, and the other does. so we can expect ubiquitous deployment 
for HTTPSSVC, with a non-modal knowledge spectrum among deployers.

-- 
Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email