On May 17, 2014, at 3:12 AM, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> 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 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 functional now, with no DNS software changes. In any case, DNSOP certainly shouldn't be anticipating a future need that hasn't yet been clearly expressed to us and designing protocol changes to address it that haven't been requested. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
