Re: [DNSOP] SRV and HTTP

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 08:51:43AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >>> 1) is addressed by defining a new type(s) rather than using prefixes.
> > 
> > While that is correct, and truly, it is trivial to implement, it is not
> > trivial to deploy: too many DNS hosting providers would have to update
> > UIs.
> 
> Garbage.  There really isn’t.  People keep saying something can’t be done
> because there are too many X.  X get replaced.  X get updated.  As for DNS
> hosting providers that support a given type, we create a site and report
> what software by version and date and what DNS hosting providers support
> the type native or unknown formats.

I didn't mean to say not to go this way.  On the contrary, we should.
Just that this is an issue.

> We also don’t have to achieve 100%.  People can move to DNS hosters that
> do support the type or host their own DNS.  Every DNS hoster that provides
> slave/secondary services already supports they type as UNKNOWN has been out
> there so long.

Ah yeah, that's true -- not a great UI, but it works.

> >>> 2) is addressed by getting recursive servers to fill in missing additional data before returning.  Named has code in review for this for SRV as proof of concept.
> > 
> > That would be very nice indeed.  Unbound will need that too.
> > 
> >>> 3) is addressed by adding some signalling between the client and recursive server to indicate if the additional section is complete or not.
> > 
> > Well, OK, but as with (2) that requires recursive resolver critical
> > mass.  Not necessarily a big deal, though it will take enough time that
> > many apps will need to support falling back to doing multiple queries
> > one by one.
> 
> They can do the queries in parallel, that 2 RTTs.

Yes, that's a big deal.