Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Root reasons (aka "why") - HTTP vs SRV vs ANAME vs CNAME

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Thu, 08 November 2018 03:00 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.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 16A8B130F04 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:00:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 VrsdqDYQ0iOd for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:00:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77B8D130E93 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:00:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:00:23 -0800
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:00:23 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] Root reasons (aka "why") - HTTP vs SRV vs ANAME vs CNAME
Thread-Index: AQHUdw8weaHp3B6py0K99txyikvHtQ==
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 03:00:22 +0000
Message-ID: <E0128EEE-CEC0-4FD1-8266-B19E4C3718F4@icann.org>
References: <CAH1iCirLfSEUcTf=p5bHuFJSFie_BoPh4X=89w2mpxgNpR9HkA@mail.gmail.com> <90611d9.7bf77335.166f12f5c66@redbarn.org>
In-Reply-To: <90611d9.7bf77335.166f12f5c66@redbarn.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6B854AAC-9D69-45D6-8548-78BAD0CDC745"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/zb_lIQRe8lgrcGBbDRx3NX9uFTg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Root reasons (aka "why") - HTTP vs SRV vs ANAME vs CNAME
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, 08 Nov 2018 03:00:34 -0000

On Nov 8, 2018, at 9:38 AM, p vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
> 
> If additional data is optional, so most resolvers can just pass it through, the DNS techs will say yes but the HTTP techs will say no.

We have a bad track record of predicting what other groups will want from the DNS or use it for. Specifying what "HTTP techs" will say seems premature before a fully-fleshed proposal is taken to them.

--Paul Hoffan