On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:05 AM Ben Schwartz wrote:
> I agree with Erik's characterization of the problem. Personally, I favor
> an _optional_, authoritative-only specification for ANAME, so that ANAME
> can be present in zone files if the server supports it, and it is processed
> 100% locally
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:53 AM Vladimír Čunát
wrote:
> In this case however, I personally believe it's much better design *not*
> to put the link-following work on authoritative servers (or their
> provisioning) but further down the chain (resolvers and/or clients).
> Well, I suppose I don't rea
On 2/21/20 3:01 PM, Klaus Malorny wrote:
> simply that I want to get rid of it. IMHO one aim of a new technology
> should be to make old technology obsolete, esp. such workarounds. If I
> have to keep them (forever?), where is the benefit (for me as a company)?
I see. You'd like to deploy someth
On 21.02.20 14:44, Vladimír Čunát wrote:
On 2/21/20 2:23 PM, Klaus Malorny wrote:
My understanding of the plan is that for fallbacks we'll have what
people are using now, e.g. that http redirect. Perhaps you can
elaborate on why that doesn't seem sufficient.
Hi Vladimir,
simply that I want t
On 2/21/20 2:23 PM, Klaus Malorny wrote:
> I see a major drawback in comparison to the ANAME draft, namely that
> there seems to be no fallback for old browsers (and robot software
> accessing websites) being defined. Of course, authoritative name
> servers could implement a similar mechanism as sp
Similar to Dan, I have HTTPS based API services whose endpoints are at a
zone apex.
Tim
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 7:19 AM Dan York wrote:
> Benno,
>
> On Feb 21, 2020, at 4:08 AM, Benno Overeinder wrote:
>
> I am interested to learn what the problem is that the customer wants to
> solve. Quoti
On 21.02.20 13:19, Dan York wrote:
If HTTPSVC can do that, and browser vendors will implement it [1], then that use
case can be satisfied.
Dan
Hi all,
I have to admit that I haven't worked through the HTTPSSVC/SVCB draft in detail,
but while it seems to provide much more functionality than
Benno,
On Feb 21, 2020, at 4:08 AM, Benno Overeinder
mailto:be...@nlnetlabs.nl>> wrote:
I am interested to learn what the problem is that the customer wants to
solve. Quoting from the email from Evan Hunt in this thread: "CNAME at
the apex wasn't really the problem. Getting browsers to display
On 2/21/20 1:04 PM, Klaus Malorny wrote:
> according to my colleagues, who are in contact with the customers, the
> use case is mostly in the context of CDNs. Some of them maintain a
> larger set of domains with alternate spellings of their product names,
> with different ccTLDs, some for promotion
On 21.02.20 10:08, Benno Overeinder wrote:
I am interested to learn what the problem is that the customer wants to
solve. Quoting from the email from Evan Hunt in this thread: "CNAME at
the apex wasn't really the problem. Getting browsers to display
content from the right CDN server was the pro
Hi Karl,
On 2/20/20 10:31 AM, Klaus Malorny wrote:
> thanks all for responding, this was very informative for me. The lack of
> interest for the ANAME draft is a bit pity. We have some customer
> requests in this direction and I was hoping to be able to offer them a
> standards compliant solution.
11 matches
Mail list logo
