> On 11 Jul 2018, at 11:22 am, Mark Nottingham <m...@mnot.net> wrote: > > > >> On 11 Jul 2018, at 3:55 am, Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote: >> >> On Jul 10, 2018, at 18:02, Adam Roach <a...@nostrum.com> wrote: >> >>> In large part because DNS provides "a richer scheme that accommodates >>> address families and multiple addresses with priorities". >> >> *cups hand to ear* >> >> Was that the sound of a distant desire to specify use of SRV for HTTP? >> > > I recently did some digging on this topic, and can try to characterise what > the issues / objections are.
I think there are three main objections. 1) Wildcards don’t work with prefixes. 2) Additional data isn’t always returned it may require multiple round trips. 3) Additional data processing doesn’t support negative responses. All of these issues are trivially easy to fix. It just require willingness to implement. 1) is addressed by defining a new type(s) rather than using prefixes. 2) is addressed by getting recursive servers to fill in missing additional data before returning. Named has code in review for this for SRV as proof of concept. 3) is addressed by adding some signalling between the client and recursive server to indicate if the additional section is complete or not. > Would people be interested in a (hopefully brief) side meeting to discuss and > maybe come to a shared understanding of the problem space? > > Cheers, > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
