Re: [DNSOP] Minimum viable ANAME

JW <jw@pcthink.com> Fri, 21 September 2018 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <jw@pcthink.com>
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 4E89B130E42 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 11:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 hifheX8CjOTA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 11:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob20.registeredsite.com (atl4mhob20.registeredsite.com [209.17.115.114]) (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 4B9A4128CF3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 11:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com (atl4qobmail02pod6.registeredsite.com [10.30.71.210]) by atl4mhob20.registeredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w8LIBdLA021837 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 14:11:39 -0400
Message-Id: <201809211811.w8LIBdLA021837@atl4mhob20.registeredsite.com>
Received: (qmail 32708 invoked by uid 0); 21 Sep 2018 18:11:39 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 73.251.233.169
X-Authenticated-UID: jw@pcthink.com
Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.1.116?) (jw@pcthink.com@73.251.233.169) by 0 with ESMTPA; 21 Sep 2018 18:11:38 -0000
SavedFromEmail: jw@pcthink.com
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 14:11:35 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqfNFbwsx3RLzY2rgPdZu926Onzp5SLEg+s1a5UHWBJmUg@mail.gmail.com>
Importance: normal
From: JW <jw@pcthink.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Cc: jw@pcthink.com, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--_com.samsung.android.email_1928353280669940"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Vhgp67TGbuBL3IpO861peu6Rllg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Minimum viable ANAME
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 Sep 2018 18:11:44 -0000

-------- Original message --------From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>;
> In my understanding of the discussion we all agree that it will take a> very long time until we have B.  So, in the end, the deployability
> seems to depend on how soon we can have situation A and how convenient> the implementations are.  It may actually come quite soon and may
> really become very popular.  I don't deny that possibility; I'm just
> not personally so optimistic about it.
>
I also feel from this discussion, we are all roughly on the same page.  We want SRV as the long term solution and something else CNAME-like for short term.
What are the next steps? 
Should we better define what we are solving and develop a problem-statement document?  This may help narrow down the scope of the short term and allow for the long term to be formalized.
/John
>
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya