Will AWS Support this? That seems to be all I see deployed now
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 8:44 PM Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > > > 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
