On 06-11-18 10:19, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 06/11/2018 16:15, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
As nice and clean the HTTP record draft is, without specifying how to
do expansion of the record into address records it is not going to
solve the CNAME-at-the-apex problem that DNS providers have, and we
will stick with the proprietary solutions (this may solve a different
use case though).
They're supposed to be expanded either in the client, or in the
recursive resolver, as described in the draft.
If we're misunderstanding each other, please let me know!
That's the crux: A solution that depends on upgrading the resolvers is
considered not a (fast enough) deployable solution.
That's why I like ANAME: It allows you to do CNAME-at-the-APEX
processing without requiring resolvers to be updated, however resolvers
can implement ANAME to optimize the behavior.
Also the ANAME in its current form does not require (but also does not
prevent) the resolution to take place inside the name server, it can be
a simple script that is part of your zone provisioning.
Best regards,
Matthijs
Ray
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
