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

"ANAME and its proprietary friends try to solve the issue it within the DNS"

Matthijs sums this wonderfully.  As a Chair, I would say ANAME is using DNS
to solve a DNS problem.
I felt Tony did an admirable job trying to simplify the current draft, but
it does seem like it's still too much.
The current draft covers Zone Transfers and DNSSEC, two issues which the WG
signaled out as
being crucial.  It is also a solution which works for whatever technology
replaces browsers.

As a chair, I stepped back and let the working group has this out as DNSOP
does best.  T

I've been happy to see the engagement on the svcb draft, as well as the
browser community.  The chairs
have felt that level of engagement was important for us to move svcb
forward.

Neither solution fully replaces the other, which makes a working group vote
of "A vs B" as not so simple.

tim

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 12:13 PM Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl>
wrote:

>
>
> On 2/26/20 11:28 PM, Andrew M. Hettinger wrote:
> > "DNSOP" <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org> wrote on 02/26/2020 08:34:55:
> >
> >> From: "Vladimír Čunát" <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic..cz>
> >> To: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
> >> Cc: "Andrew M. Hettinger" <AHettinger@Prominic.NET>
> >> Date: 02/26/2020 08:35
> >> Subject: Re:  [External]  [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc
> > drafts
> >> Sent by: "DNSOP" <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org>
> >>
> >> On 2/25/20 8:07 PM, Andrew M. Hettinger wrote:
> >> > Frankly, you've got it exactly the wrong way around: even with httpsvc
> >> > speced out completely, it will take time for it to be deployed to
> >> > browsers. That's assuming you can get enough buying from (mostly)
> >> > google to even make it happen at all.
> >>
> >> I don't think it's so simple.  The current ANAME draft specifies new
> >> behavior for resolvers, and there I'd expect even slower overall
> >> upgrades/deployment than in browsers.  Also I'm unsure how big a part of
> >> authoritative implementations will want to do ANAME expansion.  (It
> >> seems unlikely for "our" Knot DNS, for example.)
> >>
> >
> > Is there actually a commitment from browser makers to implement it?
>
> ANAME and its proprietary friends try to solve the issue it within the
> DNS, so there is no need for commitment from browser makers.
>
> - Matthijs
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>