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

Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl> Thu, 20 February 2020 08:29 UTC

Return-Path: <matthijs@pletterpet.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 252C212084F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 00:29:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 4pOw0dIo881K for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 00:29:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lb3-smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net (lb3-smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net [194.109.24.30]) (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 A76561200A3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 00:29:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:980:4eb1:1:6ddd:374f:8431:5790] ([IPv6:2001:980:4eb1:1:6ddd:374f:8431:5790]) by smtp-cloud9.xs4all.net with ESMTPSA id 4hD9j9XLIyIme4hDAjiW4J; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 09:29:35 +0100
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <b34f1b0d-fa65-23d4-1b2b-761b965a2aae@knipp.de> <CAG8jCEzO7zrfL5G5CzdJ=c5wipJgqqHfyeA-a3-QjquoyPYgvg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl>
Message-ID: <3ead518d-f166-1c36-c3e9-18aeb355d160@pletterpet.nl>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 09:29:31 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAG8jCEzO7zrfL5G5CzdJ=c5wipJgqqHfyeA-a3-QjquoyPYgvg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfH0DeIrlMWg2e26/l6oXAibl6Go8WD4fkGTjjNfAROZPFq3nyLAoQTD59IGqNydfZHmXt8PCQ973wbr5x2CkxgkOuMaeGISrnjZqKDkzqwfuqmw7LRUq Lda6zsFSY3S23ols3+DTFzR2OZCiMuzS8eFGEZLLkyKAtpt6A5qNFl+fRNx6NKv/xpjy/LMICL7pDL0yV5QiA45s8FPGtgGqd4FbyhuJMfeAUnGT5oee0NzB UPgNIb9DuXSixC+miL+BifSukWXF2ZO74LCJIaGKfz0=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/vY5jKeOZqL8ymZjZ4QaKRG8ELgc>
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: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:29:41 -0000


On 2/18/20 5:17 PM, Olli Vanhoja wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 16:20 Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de
> <mailto:Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     I asked myself about the status of the two drafts. I got the
>     impression a little
>     bit that the svcb/httpsvc draft successfully killed the aname draft,
>     but is now
>     dying slowly itself. It would be great if somebody could give me
>     some insight
>     whether the one or the other has still a measurable heartbeat, to
>     stay with the
>     allegories ;-)
> 
> 
> SVCB is active almost every day of the week in GitHub.
> 
> I can't talk on behalf of the authors of the ANAME draft, but to me it
> seems that SVCB is getting more traction and it addresses the core
> problems that ANAME was supposed to solve.

ANAME was supposed to solve the CNAME at the apex problem and mitigate
against DNS vendor lock in. Both SVCB and HTTPSSCV do not fix this problem.

But yeah, the draft is pretty much dead due to lack of interest.

- Matthijs