IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> Thu, 20 February 2020 09:59 UTC

Return-Path: <shane@time-travellers.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 C219A1200D8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 01:59:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <d9kUQFJDZ3UE>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Improper folded header field made up entirely of whitespace (char 20 hex): X-Spam-Report: ...T_ADDRESS@@ for details.\n \n Content previ[...]
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 d9kUQFJDZ3UE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 01:59:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from saturn.zonnestelsel.tk (saturn.zonnestelsel.tk [IPv6:2001:470:78c8:2::11]) (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 7E50C1200CD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 01:59:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from earth.zonnestelsel.tk ([2001:470:78c8:2::9]) by saturn.zonnestelsel.tk with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <shane@time-travellers.org>) id 1j4icV-0002lA-8c for dnsop@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 09:59:49 +0000
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>
From: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
Message-ID: <600215ff-3bfb-78b0-48fa-84a5dc71239f@time-travellers.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:59:47 +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: <3ead518d-f166-1c36-c3e9-18aeb355d160@pletterpet.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score-Int: -28
X-Spam-Bar: --
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/IPOqom5Cvhw0WNTsQB6qv4a2Td4>
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 09:59:55 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email