Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Extended CNAME (ENAME) Date: Sat, May 17, 2014 at 07:51:00AM -0400 Quoting Ted Lemon (ted.le...@nominum.com): > On May 17, 2014, at 3:12 AM, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > >> Or are there other uses for ENAME beyond what the HTTP/CDN crowd do > >> with CNAMEs today? > > > > I would encourage both. ENAME is just service agnostic. > > It might be worth actively pushing the CDN folks to go the SRV direction. > Even if ENAME were a good idea, which is not clear to me, it's an idea that > would require significant infrastructure changes, whereas SRV records appear > to be functional now, with no DNS software changes.
++; SRV is implemented (even by closed-source DNS servers/resolvers that otherwise leave lots to desire), powerful and largely unexploited. Inclusion in HTTP2.0 would be a major motivator. > In any case, DNSOP certainly shouldn't be anticipating a future need that > hasn't yet been clearly expressed to us and designing protocol changes to > address it that haven't been requested. One can lead sheep to the grass, but challenges remain. It is not clear that inventing different grass will be worth the effort, compared to offering the present, already grown, grass. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 Yow! I want my nose in lights!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
