Re: [DNSOP] port number in HTTPSSVC

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Fri, 03 January 2020 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
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 4D21E120099 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:01:32 -0800 (PST)
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 1wueo--cUDOq for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:01:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92CA1120045 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 13:01:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from linux-9daj.localnet (dhcp-179.access.rits.tisf.net [24.104.150.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29E02B0591 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 21:01:29 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 21:01:28 +0000
Message-ID: <2555373.8N7kIaE6NO@linux-9daj>
Organization: none
In-Reply-To: <CAMGpriX=KNhEBO7AxCi+AQTJs4LV1USWmeJuGidTX7gFtFewRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1880498.g4XWyb2Ovm@linux-9daj> <CAHbrMsCcokTmgFgyiDRXvLndmzs9nsJayg11az27xSOFnK0ozw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMGpriX=KNhEBO7AxCi+AQTJs4LV1USWmeJuGidTX7gFtFewRA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/fNkD3FLezdGi2rllJzbgNDwzIRo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] port number in HTTPSSVC
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, 03 Jan 2020 21:01:32 -0000

On Friday, 3 January 2020 20:01:04 UTC Erik Kline wrote:
> I think removing port number flexibility might unduly constrain some data
> center use cases where service reachability might not have the more common
> 443-only limitations.

"think" and "might" are unpersuasive, and "unduly" is subjective. however, 
i'll explain further on the other mailing list that the HTTPSSVC co-chair 
directed me to.

-- 
Paul