> On Aug 15, 2017, at 14:25, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:28:15AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> We can specify that be sent as additional data for QTYPE=A, and
>>> that A be sent as additional data when QTYPE=.
>>>
>>> given iden
On 5/19/14, 16:43, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>No. Your analysis is faulty.
>
>ENAME could be used immediately once the authoritative servers for
>the zone support it. It would just be insecure until validators
>catch up. ENAME + old algorithm would be illegal and would be
>enforced by signing code
I too think the SRV route is far better.
I've always thought it was an architectural mistake to be looking up
hostnames when what you wanted was a service. SRV records have
priority, weighting, and the ability to specify a port, all of which
are useful. Since the owner name for a service whose U
