Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: HTTPSSVC record draft

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

Joe Abley wrote on 2019-07-09 17:35:
> On Jul 9, 2019, at 20:11, Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> everything other than HTTPS can just use SRV.
>>
>> ANAME is (should be) toast(ed).
> 
> Didn't we get to this point by acknowledging that there was a gap
> between now and the glorious future where SRV and unnamed alternatives
> for HTTPS, and that the gap was already being filled by multiple,
> different, ANAME-looking things?

not i.

SRV was good enough for HTTP. it was designed after HTTP, for HTTP. the 
reason it wasn't deployed for HTTP has nothing to do with the things 
that make HTTPSSVC necessary for HTTPS. (we would still need HTTPSSVC 
for HTTPS even if HTTP had adopted SRV.)

> 
> The point of ANAME was to give us some multi-provider/Interop options
> while the trucks roll, I thought. They are not fast trucks. It has
> taken 23 years to get from RFC 2052 to here.

the web browsing community has very fast trucks. what was a concern for 
the older, larger application-independent "Internet" is not for this. if 
IETF and W3C agree that HTTPSSVC is the way forward, it'll be used for 
50% or more of all web transactions within a year, and 90% within five 
years.


-- 
P Vixie