Shane, There has been no discussions and no progress on ANAME since July 2019. If ANAME is something that (part of) the working group wants to work on, it requires more interaction, discussion to solve the final issues (see the github page https://github.com/each/draft-aname/).
Best regards, Matthijs On 2/20/20 10:59 AM, Shane Kerr wrote: > Matthijs, > > On 20/02/2020 09.29, Matthijs Mekking wrote: >> >> >> On 2/18/20 5:17 PM, Olli Vanhoja wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 16:20 Klaus Malorny <klaus.malo...@knipp.de >>> <mailto:klaus.malo...@knipp.de>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I asked myself about the status of the two drafts. I got the >>> impression a little >>> bit that the svcb/httpsvc draft successfully killed the aname >>> draft, >>> but is now >>> dying slowly itself. It would be great if somebody could give me >>> some insight >>> whether the one or the other has still a measurable heartbeat, to >>> stay with the >>> allegories ;-) >>> >>> >>> SVCB is active almost every day of the week in GitHub. >>> >>> I can't talk on behalf of the authors of the ANAME draft, but to me it >>> seems that SVCB is getting more traction and it addresses the core >>> problems that ANAME was supposed to solve. >> >> ANAME was supposed to solve the CNAME at the apex problem and mitigate >> against DNS vendor lock in. Both SVCB and HTTPSSCV do not fix this >> problem. >> >> But yeah, the draft is pretty much dead due to lack of interest. > > Is there a lack of interest? That's not clear to me. I think rather > there are DNS folks who don't like ANAME for philosophical reasons and > actively strive to prevent it moving forward. > > Cheers, > > -- > Shane > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
