IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Extended CNAME (ENAME)

Petr Spacek <pspacek@redhat.com> Tue, 20 May 2014 12:17 UTC

Return-Path: <pspacek@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 437891A06D5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 May 2014 05:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 fQ6C-A85a5H1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 May 2014 05:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7951C1A06D0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2014 05:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4KCHBbW011307 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2014 08:17:11 -0400
Received: from pspacek.brq.redhat.com (pspacek.brq.redhat.com [10.34.4.156]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4KCH90Y022423 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2014 08:17:10 -0400
Message-ID: <537B47C4.5080508@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 14:17:08 +0200
From: Petr Spacek <pspacek@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <mailman.81.1400353284.24808.dnsop@ietf.org> <21370.33215.875300.671179@tale.kendall.corp.akamai.com> <4B289B9D-1710-403F-8C45-156D1D3AA5A8@nominum.com> <537AD201.8010008@redbarn.org> <829C54BC-A637-4935-A69A-6FDFF78AEC0C@frobbit.se> <20140520091013.51373161D8FE@rock.dv.isc.org> <Prayer.1.3.5.1405201252020.30993@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <Prayer.1.3.5.1405201252020.30993@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.27
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Q2p8pPloOLcQuT2Ts78sKhNx6bQ
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Extended CNAME (ENAME)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 20 May 2014 12:17:13 -0000

On 20.5.2014 13:52, Chris Thompson wrote:
> On May 20 2014, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>> I've updated draft-andrews-http-srv-02.
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andrews-http-srv-02
>
> Wouldn't it be desirable to say something about https URIs as well as
> http ones? It would seem that we will need an _https._tcp.[name] SRV
> RRSet as well as the _http._srv.[name] one. (The idea of https overriding
> the port number(s) in the _http._srv.[name] records with 443 seems
> too horrible to contemplate.)

Hmm, would it be too weird to use

_http._srv.[name] CNAME _https._tcp.[name]

as 'HTTPS required' signalization?

(This is weird, I admit that. There will be troubles with DNS client libraries 
not exposing CNAMEs etc... I just can't resist.)

-- 
Petr Spacek  @  Red Hat

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email