IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Http-srv] Alternative to SRV?

"Patrik Fältström " <paf@frobbit.se> Wed, 29 August 2018 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
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 16EDB126DBF for <http-srv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 mog1gcJObLym for <http-srv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 276B2130E0E for <http-srv@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.165.72.22] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::22]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 169E7236E2; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 20:42:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
To: Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org>
Cc: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>, http-srv@ietf.org, Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 20:42:20 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (2.0BETAr6116)
Message-ID: <3742815C-5E73-4F16-AC90-4DD28B307FCF@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <CAKC-DJg0-hoL0zCVqNk-L1CcQcH_oaKVJHV9Sco0AqzZaGunWA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6aceab29-cf81-8644-20cd-e02281e6394c@bellis.me.uk> <DDFF92A9-9F1D-4883-AF5C-1372EBDAB156@isc.org> <CAKC-DJj3uGYwgd5v+VUEWCDS08NMcFne+1iZ2EC3FVr2qKmcwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHPuVdWFbB_u7ppkGsF6A-8qXDqdmAyP0v5E_OAO2vzUsD9Ayg@mail.gmail.com> <9093d0e6-3546-c742-91a1-2cac4e26984e@bellis.me.uk> <CAHPuVdVuMV0CBaZCik_utFFV_jek4XagDaw-BmUV0Lof5bJvNQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJg0-hoL0zCVqNk-L1CcQcH_oaKVJHV9Sco0AqzZaGunWA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_E259E10A-FF89-42BA-BE7A-2753033534CC_="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-srv/qgqFEJpW5tU-99FLfJXd1Ol9a4U>
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: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 18:42:27 -0000

On 29 Aug 2018, at 20:10, Erik Nygren wrote:

> They unfortunately may be needed as otherwise we'd be back in the same boat around CNAMEs at the zone apex.  At least for the CDN use-case, once a non-trivial amount of information shows up in the rrtype, it likely needs to be managed by the CDN.  Having "_443._[https.example.com](<http://https.example.com>)" means it can be a CNAME'd whereas if was a record on "[example.com](<http://example.com>)" we'd be back in the same boat.

More specifically, it can be delegated.

See also RFC 7553 - the URI Resource Record.

  Patrik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email