IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Http-srv] Alternative to SRV?

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 22 August 2018 03:25 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
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 EDFD41277D2 for <http-srv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 8UaI3o0BzZ0Z for <http-srv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x232.google.com (mail-oi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72998128CB7 for <Http-srv@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x232.google.com with SMTP id k12-v6so882703oiw.8 for <Http-srv@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aRRZhHYHgvMStoFJJ3KUSo4SxIkTxkGyB6o5dYDEciU=; b=YK6GQWaMTiMUjeu6D9RrB2DQEm7P0TyaOP3xhRajIGUL0ZGmWt4qf9uC/LI9+EAB7y 5KlFZ1CtfACqsH9PJFmrGJ5GGccc0/+KyVEB4eOdCs2NkTerZRkLjzarym039pwwesDJ xp2Km8H1+nL/a9Y8vOHjK6aHJoU2GsstpzgPfwYNDPzh0CC8yP/U4yw9iQmDUAf5/d4t gEi0C20gNw/XogdWwY51OCQz7aPRMhOCcqkbDIGPEwNehf3iiRYQTb3qkLWsSWdIwKaJ TthnDyaqlyr3Uryc/YDGBm5cwdRb5joXFmR7in+d/3pKuEdb/n5z9+ulS09ykPshPSiS J6GA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aRRZhHYHgvMStoFJJ3KUSo4SxIkTxkGyB6o5dYDEciU=; b=gNheJWeeNs2WT+GgMKRcLkaZJxnZsqxROWq00DUv4oSavSORyAjT4os5TH1HmLNgrV 3iIlR1kK5NpZ+wRDbTOAPeIx4w+MEAcCuMNe0wZZskMQRUNIjeeDmnMx9R/EyfbpsfDr dBqO/tULsqIch4tj+8CFyfPQvIXWLpTbU3i4AD9P69RC9rIdw9PxG6rtGU1LCQHTL53p pJxsvMkeo0UbqHlG3Ps6d0t+1pH5DI2UPb/4voOz5PVFpeQyTNzK85oG3OQORnCwept1 SO3s0QoZfCdyUPtK+WifMsFqNG6XEtJF6VVujsTV3OZ39gl4bin0oxI1PpZVLYCsCJF5 K+Qw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51A1zsb6hIuF2dff6VcLrZIeBwz0/NuFq9ZUxVShFYBuQAW21iRV pdEpi2yszJjJAOH6gHOTCSTUOOffxGfejHC7fjU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0Vdb1DvoYjlB66EGd7UaBp7lcaLB0VKTDYpQjVy0UQ8mOjEfVTLUsjCEbD0kMopvEiuVKM4alvF48yknUUOZ1xdU=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:ab11:: with SMTP id u17-v6mr2328581oie.53.1534908352643; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6aceab29-cf81-8644-20cd-e02281e6394c@bellis.me.uk> <DDFF92A9-9F1D-4883-AF5C-1372EBDAB156@isc.org> <CABkgnnU8NkayO=PANGSG8Eh_rajwu2bdjLSDZ5f_15KwTqhKQA@mail.gmail.com> <81377D4F-DECA-4201-A286-FF750B5D9723@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <81377D4F-DECA-4201-A286-FF750B5D9723@isc.org>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 13:25:42 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXAYnAwThzpNBUgOtCJm7_YsGzxrbf3D8Skra+JEufxKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>, Http-srv@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-srv/vAuoP76e0WLuT7aaCmEY9lf36nc>
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, 22 Aug 2018 03:25:55 -0000

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:56 PM Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> > On 22 Aug 2018, at 10:44 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think that you are free to pretend that HTTPS is the only variant of
> > the protocol.  There's no point in shipping improvements for the
> > cleartext variant.
>
> We have to make stuff work for http as well as https.  There are still sites
> that want to use http at the zone’s name where CNAME doesn’t work.  This is a
> CURRENT problem.

My point is that we don't have to fix http.  It's a broken protocol
that we support for backwards-compatibility reasons.

> > What are you thinking about ALPN?
>
> What are you thinking about?  The default would be the status quo.  I would
> like to be able to deploy this without requiring servers (excludes proxies)
> to be updated.

If you take a narrow view and say that we just need A++ or AAAA++, we
get a design that has no real incentive to deploy.  But if we were to
make it easier to deploy QUIC (for example), that might be a valuable
inducement.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email