On 05/18/2014 07:58 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> 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. > > As I have stated several times I disagree with any statement that claim > "significant infrastructure changes". > > This usage is the reason I did define the URI resource record, so that one > could get a "redirect" already in DNS instead of escaping to HTTP. > > example.com. IN URI 1 2 "https://foo.hosting.bar/example.com/startpage/en"; >
So can that be used instead of specifying something where the initial proposal casually mentions "This would require a dnssec algorithm bump"? Not saying this to move it from dnsop to any other list or group, but that line alone implies there's a significant protocol change. Jelte _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
