Re: [dnsext] SRV and wildcard CNAME

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>, Masataka Ohta writes:
> Larry Brower wrote:
> 
> > I disagree, I say you are wasting it. Mark told you why it was a bad
> > idea and you just want to argue the point.
> 
> It was already argued before Mark's first response:
> 
> > Non existent protocols are not a problem, because they just do
> > not work, which is fine.
> > The problem is that protocols used share a port.
> > However, as the only protocol which may be used by *LAZY* users,
> > other than http, is https, it may share the same port as http,
> > if servers are implemented to distinguish them by the first
> > byte of the request.
> 
> and, again, just after Mark's first response:
> 
> > When the protocols used at the domain are http and https only,
> > nothing break.
> 
> Protocols not used at a domain can not break at the domain,
> because they are not used.
> 
> But Mark *REPEATED* his unfounded statement, which is
> the waste of bandwidth.

When the discovery phase of the protocol returns a answer when it
shouldn't have you have broken the protocol regardless of whether
it would ultimately succeed or not.  Additionally no one has the
ability to foresee future needs.

I re-iterate.  Wildcards SRV records are a bad idea.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext