IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl> Fri, 21 February 2020 09:08 UTC

Return-Path: <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329791200B1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 01:08:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
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 46dgBjiCgyT4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 01:08:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (dicht.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2a04:b900::1:0:0:10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3FB812009E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 01:08:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] (j48230.upc-j.chello.nl [24.132.48.230]) by dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6AF752525D; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:08:51 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=NLnetLabs.nl
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=benno@NLnetLabs.nl
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1582276131; bh=+GPmioTdhM20kXSPvwxgcB2H19IxrmAzC2k3pnlIbgE=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=xbQrh4qHQEbSMFTY8P7+OeFSVFcOzhipHfZReeMwm6ShSfuvBKYnyq7+9GBrQJuZQ /qRC0GT1CkF0tnJri8HLmWNURzATcYBYTZLIEVqHIDEahQiCvhzOyBtGsFqn5Uj2ks SD7n5YBv+j/7BKgKqUsiTA0HbNhsT0WoRWQs5QpM=
To: Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>, dnsop@ietf.org
References: <b34f1b0d-fa65-23d4-1b2b-761b965a2aae@knipp.de> <CAG8jCEzO7zrfL5G5CzdJ=c5wipJgqqHfyeA-a3-QjquoyPYgvg@mail.gmail.com> <3ead518d-f166-1c36-c3e9-18aeb355d160@pletterpet.nl> <57323a0d-6d33-ceef-1e99-58d61eff16dd@knipp.de>
From: Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
Message-ID: <041cf7a9-be2b-18bd-7f76-edbae5cd1e4b@NLnetLabs.nl>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:08:51 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <57323a0d-6d33-ceef-1e99-58d61eff16dd@knipp.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/TW8d2aDt0v45Pyn-2mLG3mvID9k>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:08:55 -0000

Hi Karl,

On 2/20/20 10:31 AM, Klaus Malorny wrote:
> thanks all for responding, this was very informative for me. The lack of
> interest for the ANAME draft is a bit pity. We have some customer
> requests in this direction and I was hoping to be able to offer them a
> standards compliant solution. So now I have to rethink our strategy.

I am interested to learn what the problem is that the customer wants to
solve.  Quoting from the email from Evan Hunt in this thread: "CNAME at
the apex wasn't really the problem.  Getting browsers to display
content from the right CDN server was the problem."

If there is a specific use case for CNAME in the APEX (ANAME), I am
really interested to learn from this.

Thanks,

-- Benno

-- 
Benno J. Overeinder
NLnet Labs
https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email