IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Minimum viable ANAME

Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org> Sat, 03 November 2018 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <nygren@gmail.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 926D612872C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Nov 2018 13:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 nSQ9WH2qi30M for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Nov 2018 13:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f52.google.com (mail-io1-f52.google.com [209.85.166.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0469C1276D0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Nov 2018 13:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f52.google.com with SMTP id h19-v6so3774946iog.9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 03 Nov 2018 13:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WO+/6jn4n5Nlyp34N+xCLqef/3vKrP5l34SM/Fds5KQ=; b=bZqPYpyDWhVIWL3UZlBFg1QZOlP1id5KIt/sfV6n31z+e3OLqJoEEwapjKfyNQZMrt RQmdQb1jFsI+Jws3kkQqW5mn4W/8akHZDB1Twm+FGm2sKqBpDFaArcoqHg0acjZa2XAy 6XJ43rQ2DDp0etAAXqMqwE5r7SLvItsSNGifPYf26nxy+OUDcM7eVSXmI5RrfxVG5q5P pM5tPbFQ/wdDp28UgM+hAepezaRv6VBtg6kN8dQPxr8F5HvLfrsouAULgS3CoRIOI95n sT3E6T4994hUKmio1beV+eevZqqH95HVX0+0ArB/QZJ9YIjhv8TxHOwwISyQ8dazo8Hf ENpw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJUSc1JvXSa2VSL3Hr19/PKL1rjU/j2W5RPfIZmmJMGnbiv4TXF YTKB49dNepa903nDJRueiqxB8yCMT0PLHULhWgE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5eGdhuf6Ba76HdLvVdfbLA4tmkEYwJa/4YxVOyHIKwvAaJcWCGLxhYeuzagk4XNQ0//0g5Gbi+AKrsYTcEToC4=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:c80d:: with SMTP id y13-v6mr12770962iol.198.1541275954056; Sat, 03 Nov 2018 13:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <201809211811.w8LIBdLA021837@atl4mhob20.registeredsite.com> <fdee6f3f-dd86-b482-5263-eb8e2a21bcb7@bellis.me.uk>
In-Reply-To: <fdee6f3f-dd86-b482-5263-eb8e2a21bcb7@bellis.me.uk>
From: Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2018 16:12:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKC-DJi=Afer4uKprMf-uaNB07MVY-XJ+etocntY0BbU1bXYrg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, "Bishop, Mike" <mbishop@akamai.com>, Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000be11a40579c8459e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/gd0K_2y_1yuJaYS3Eugpyhyou1I>
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: Sat, 03 Nov 2018 20:12:37 -0000

How does draft-schwartz-httpbis-dns-alt-svc-02 with some changes to make it
more DNS-aligned (e.g. the name as a separate field in the record) not help
here?  It comes from the HTTP world and is aligned with the existing AltSvc
feature and thus is useful in other ways (such as perhaps solving the DNS
deployabilty issues for encrypted SNI):

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schwartz-httpbis-dns-alt-svc-02


- Erik



On Sun, Sep 23, 2018, 10:41 AM Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk wrote:

> On 21/09/2018 19:11, JW wrote:
>
> > I also feel from this discussion, we are all roughly on the same page.
> > We want SRV as the long term solution ...
>
> except that we heard at the side meeting in Montreal (albeit from
> browser people rather than content people) that they *don't* want SRV,
> because it has fields that are not compatible with the web security model.
>
> I still want to define a new RR that does have mutually agreed semantics
> that's specifically for use by HTTP(s), but so far no takers.
>
> Ray
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email