Re: [DNSOP] HTTPS and SVBC client support measurement.

[Ben Schwartz <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 8:51 PM Mark Andrews <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > However, I think your purpose here is already well-served by the current
> draft.  If you publish SVCB records that point to a different server IP
> address or port from the non-SVCB connections, you can easily observe what
> fraction of users are SVCB-enabled.
>
> but those mechanisms don’t help people deciding whether to publish
> HTTPS/SVBC in the first place.
>

Publishing a SVCB record is free, and if the operator is considering
publishing _only_ a SVCB record, surely they should first be willing to
publish it in addition to their current configuration.

As in your example, the difficulty was not in publishing the MX record in
the first place, but in safely removing the apex address records.


> > --
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: [phone] <+61%202%209871%204742>              INTERNET:
> [e-mail]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DNSOP mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: [phone] <+61%202%209871%204742>              INTERNET:
> [e-mail]
>
>