Joe Abley wrote on 2019-07-09 17:35:
On Jul 9, 2019, at 20:11, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote:
everything other than HTTPS can just use SRV.
ANAME is (should be) toast(ed).
Didn't we get to this point by acknowledging that there was a gap
between now and the glorious future where SRV and unnamed alternatives
for HTTPS, and that the gap was already being filled by multiple,
different, ANAME-looking things?
not i.
SRV was good enough for HTTP. it was designed after HTTP, for HTTP. the
reason it wasn't deployed for HTTP has nothing to do with the things
that make HTTPSSVC necessary for HTTPS. (we would still need HTTPSSVC
for HTTPS even if HTTP had adopted SRV.)
The point of ANAME was to give us some multi-provider/Interop options
while the trucks roll, I thought. They are not fast trucks. It has
taken 23 years to get from RFC 2052 to here.
the web browsing community has very fast trucks. what was a concern for
the older, larger application-independent "Internet" is not for this. if
IETF and W3C agree that HTTPSSVC is the way forward, it'll be used for
50% or more of all web transactions within a year, and 90% within five
years.
--
P Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
