-------- Original message --------From: Mark Andrews <[email protected]> > I would also expect a relatively large client population using SRV records> > given the rate Firefox and Chrome browsers are upgraded. SRV lookups> work > for lots ofother protocols. SRV records also make it through> firewalls and > IDS today. >
Hi Mark, I agree SRV is the obvious choice for a greenfield protocol but there is HTTP code sprinkled /everywhere/. I can't imagine all those forgotten scripts, lonely IOT devices, and troubleshooting guides are going to be as easy to solve as updating chrome and firefox. Whatever the solution, I feel it should be as transparent to the client as possible. CNAME would fit this bill but the negative impact is largely unknown. Perhaps defining a set of default protocols for SRV where it could simulate a CNAME-like response if https/http SRV records are found? /John > > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, > NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 > INTERNET: [email protected]
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
