Re: [DNSOP] a CDN perspective on ANAME challenges

On 7/23/19 2:33 PM, Ben Schwartz wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 4:39 AM Matthijs Mekking > wrote: > > Hi Erik, > > On 7/22/19 9:31 PM, Erik Nygren wrote: > > Reading the draft again, I think a challenge with the structure > relative >

Re: [DNSOP] a CDN perspective on ANAME challenges

Hi Erik, On 7/22/19 9:31 PM, Erik Nygren wrote: > Reading the draft again, I think a challenge with the structure relative > to the CDN > use-case is that requirements on how and where sibling record resolution > is done are derived from the target of the ANAME, not from the > authoritative namese

Re: [DNSOP] a CDN perspective on ANAME challenges

Reading the draft again, I think a challenge with the structure relative to the CDN use-case is that requirements on how and where sibling record resolution is done are derived from the target of the ANAME, not from the authoritative nameserver. It may make sense to be much more clear on this, as

Re: [DNSOP] a CDN perspective on ANAME challenges

Hi Erik, Thanks for sharing this perspective. On 7/12/19 7:52 PM, Erik Nygren wrote: > One of the intended goals of ANAME is to improve interoperability of > onboarding onto CDNs for URLs at a zone apex, such as > “http(s)://example.com ”.   > > > The TL;DR is that ANAME is

Re: [DNSOP] a CDN perspective on ANAME challenges

> On 13 Jul 2019, at 3:52 am, Erik Nygren wrote: > > One of the intended goals of ANAME is to improve interoperability of > onboarding onto CDNs for URLs at a zone apex, such as > “http(s)://example.com”. > > The TL;DR is that ANAME is unlikely to allow interoperability here unless > auth

[DNSOP] a CDN perspective on ANAME challenges

One of the intended goals of ANAME is to improve interoperability of onboarding onto CDNs for URLs at a zone apex, such as “http(s)://example.com ”. The TL;DR is that ANAME is unlikely to allow interoperability here unless authorities are willing to effectively and scalablely do recursion-with-ECS