On 19 June 2018 at 15:02, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > In article <CAJhMdTO2kj+nUqESg3ew=wwZuB9OzkJE6pST=mae7pHiEk4-Qw@ > mail.gmail.com> you write: > >This sounds like a lot of work and likely to cause camel indigestion. > > Agreed but it doesn't seem all that much less work than a well > specified version of ANAME, and it avoids the ANAME ugliness of making > authoritative servers do recursive lookups. > > But even after all that work, CNAME + other data is still not quite going to work, because there's an install base for which the behaviour is unspecified and ambiguous. CNAME + other data fails in indeterminate ways depending on which recursive implementation you happen to query for it.
I'm still of the mind that a protocol specific service type for HTTP is all we need to fix the problem. If ANAME seems like too much work, and SRV isn't quite what the HTTP folks want, then maybe we should have a closer look at ALTSVC or make up something entirely new that does precisely what HTTP requires.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
