On 18/09/2018 22:02, JW wrote: > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> > >> I would also expect a relatively large client population using SRV records >> given the rate Firefox and Chrome browsers are upgraded. SRV lookups >> work for lots ofother protocols. SRV records also make it through >> firewalls and IDS today. >> > > Hi Mark, > > I agree SRV is the obvious choice for a greenfield protocol but there is > HTTP code sprinkled /everywhere/. I can't imagine all those forgotten > scripts, lonely IOT devices, and troubleshooting guides are going to be > as easy to solve as updating chrome and firefox. > > Whatever the solution, I feel it should be as transparent to the client > as possible. CNAME would fit this bill but the negative impact is > largely unknown.
TL;DR: Experiments with CNAME @ apex showed that it is not going to work if the domain has e.g. MX records for e-mail. Ondrej Sury describes his experimental results in presentation here: https://github.com/IETF-Hackathon/ietf102-project-presentations/blob/master/dns_hackathon-presentation.pdf Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC > Perhaps defining a set of default protocols for SRV where it could > simulate a CNAME-like response if https/http SRV records are found? > > /John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
