[DNSOP] ANAME high-level benefit question

[Brian Dickson <[e-mail]>]

I know a lot of folks are spending a lot of time working on ANAME.

At the risk of offending those well-intentioned folks, the question I have
is a follows:

Have any "closed system" implementations of non-standard apex-CNAME hacks,
committed publicly to neutral ANAME operations, presuming ANAME as
currently envisioned?

I.e. If each such provider will ONLY support ANAME with targets on their
own infrastructure, I don't think the standardization effort will have any
real value.
On the other hand, if a substantial proportion of those providers have
committed to an even playing field support for ANAME targets and sibling
records, then the current ANAME proposal would have some value.

Reason for asking:
The effort of deploying ANAME might have a negative second-order effect, in
terms of resolver- or client-side (sibling-free) ANAME handling. The
sibling records would reduce or remove the impetus for deprecation of
sibling records, with all the scaling/performance issues that siblings
create.

If the "hack" providers won't do the sibling handling (with service parity)
for ANAME, then I'd prefer seeing the effort made on a non-sibling ANAME
instead.

Apologies in advance for any offense by use of terms "hack", or any
perceived aspersions to providers of such service.

Also, in the absence of such commitments, I think it would be fair to
presume non-parity (but nothing specific beyond that).

Brian