Re: [DNSOP] Minimum viable ANAME

[Mukund Sivaraman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tony

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:08:45PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> * minimal ANAME can be deployed unilaterally on the provisioning side
> * 20 years ago and similar features are widely available (you are
> * ahead of me on this one, John!); if resolvers implement it there
> * will be useful amounts of deployed support within a few years
> 
> * browser-friendly SRV replacement: two years to standardization;
> * another two years watching caniuse before we can maybe think about
> * not copying A records around; even more years before it becomes as
> * portable on the provisioning side as ANAME is now
> 
> * fix CNAME, at least 10 years

All these have similar adoption rate risks. Mark has a point that it's
more difficult to check for the last one.

There are orders of magnitude fewer resolver instances to upgrade than
HTTP user agents (popular web browsers aren't the only HTTP clients).

I don't follow how ANAME, if resolvers have to implement it, can be
deployed within a few years, and fixing CNAME takes at least 10 years.
They both involve resolver changes.

SRV is most elegant. IMO we should push the resolver-side CNAME handling
change through so one day in the future it is available widely.

		Mukund