On 17 maj 2014, at 13:51, Ted Lemon wrote:
> It might be worth actively pushing the CDN folks to go the SRV direction.
> Even if ENAME were a good idea, which is not clear to me, it's an idea that
> would require significant infrastructure changes, whereas SRV records appear
> to be functio
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Extended CNAME (ENAME) Date: Sat, May 17, 2014 at
07:51:00AM -0400 Quoting Ted Lemon (ted.le...@nominum.com):
> On May 17, 2014, at 3:12 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >> Or are there other uses for ENAME beyond what the HTTP/CDN crowd do
> >> with CNAMEs today?
> >
> > I would e
In message <9df48618-9856-43f7-8e69-b43a1b0e5...@hopcount.ca>, Joe Abley writes
:
>
> On 17 May 2014, at 7:51, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 2014, at 3:12 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >>> Or are there other uses for ENAME beyond what the HTTP/CDN crowd do
> >>> with CNAMEs today?
> >>
> >> I wo
On May 17, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> With respect to using SRV for HTTP (which I agree would be great) the gap is
> on the client side. It's an application issue, and I don't see a lot of work
> to be done in this working group.
How widespread is HTTP 2.0 support in browsers at the m
On 17 May 2014, at 7:51, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On May 17, 2014, at 3:12 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> Or are there other uses for ENAME beyond what the HTTP/CDN crowd do
>>> with CNAMEs today?
>>
>> I would encourage both. ENAME is just service agnostic.
>
> It might be worth actively pushing the
On May 17, 2014, at 3:12 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> Or are there other uses for ENAME beyond what the HTTP/CDN crowd do
>> with CNAMEs today?
>
> I would encourage both. ENAME is just service agnostic.
It might be worth actively pushing the CDN folks to go the SRV direction.
Even if ENAME we
In message <20140517011926.71263.qm...@f5-external.bushwire.net>, "Mark Delany"
writes:
> On 17May14, Mark Andrews allegedly wrote:
> >
> > domain ENAME domain {0|1} [type list of included / excluded types]
> > (0 == include, 1 == exclude)
>
> As I recall, the HTTP/2.0 folks hav
