[Last-Call] Dnsdir last call review of draft-ietf-cdni-delegation-acme-03

Vladimír Čunát via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 12 October 2023 14:35 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Vladimír Čunát via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: dnsdir@ietf.org
Cc: cdni@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cdni-delegation-acme.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <169712134536.27509.16148682380110792611@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 07:35:45 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/ZVi13eE_5z8jQvYvF6z3NXNadCI>
Subject: [Last-Call] Dnsdir last call review of draft-ietf-cdni-delegation-acme-03

Reviewer: Vladimír Čunát
Review result: Ready

So, dnsdir assigned me reviewing this draft, but I basically failed to find DNS
in it :-)  And I'm afraid I don't know ACME well, so I'm marking this draft as
"Ready" just not to block it on DNS.  Maybe I've just missed it, so point me to
the DNS aspects, please.

Still, let me at least comment around this DNS redirection.  The parent RFC
9115 only considers CNAMEs, at a glance.  It feels like for future the
SVCB/HTTPS records should be considered a well (in a different draft/RFC). 
They were designed with modern web CDN needs in mind, and among other features
they support "redirecting" a zone apex, which seems practically important.  For
a trivial example, you can't put a CNAME at example.com, only at
www.example.com.

[SVCB/HTTPS] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https/

[Last-Call] Dnsdir last call review of draft-ietf… Vladimír Čunát via Datatracker
Re: [Last-Call] Dnsdir last call review of draft-… frederic.fieau
Re: [Last-Call] Dnsdir last call review of draft-… frederic.fieau