Re: [Http-srv] Alternative to SRV?

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 23 August 2018 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
X-Original-To: http-srv@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-srv@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA2D5130E3C for <http-srv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 gb9sTszMPl_M for <http-srv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.133]) (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 957A0128CE4 for <Http-srv@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:33406) by ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.139]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1fsqLn-000r1W-h6 (Exim 4.91) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 23 Aug 2018 15:12:39 +0100
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 15:12:39 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
cc: Http-srv@ietf.org, Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
In-Reply-To: <91657BCC-B3ED-40EE-8C7C-D8ECD85DFCB3@isc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1808231509500.3596@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <6aceab29-cf81-8644-20cd-e02281e6394c@bellis.me.uk> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1808212037370.3596@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <d2dc5f58-3c91-f890-2aba-fa7601636d78@bellis.me.uk> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1808231411260.3596@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <91657BCC-B3ED-40EE-8C7C-D8ECD85DFCB3@isc.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="1870870841-1566110613-1535033559=:3596"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-srv/4hR22V7soiVJZ5xGg02ib7qAMHc>
Subject: Re: [Http-srv] Alternative to SRV?
X-BeenThere: http-srv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Using DNS SRV Records with HTTP <http-srv.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/http-srv>, <mailto:http-srv-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/http-srv/>
List-Post: <mailto:http-srv@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:http-srv-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-srv>, <mailto:http-srv-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 14:12:44 -0000

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>
> The plan is to get to the stage when you are outsourcing the HTTP servers
> to just have to publish new records with the names of those servers.  You
> only *need* to publish A and AAAA’s for legacy clients.  You are also not
> forced to publish the new record as the clients will continue to work with
> just A and AAAA records.

The reason I like ANAME is that all of this backwards compatibility and
migration faff is automated away.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Viking, North Utsire: Southerly becoming cyclonic then westerly, 4 or 5,
increasing 6 at times. Slight or moderate. Rain then showers, squally at
times. Good, occasionally poor at first.