"DNSOP" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org> wrote on 02/27/2020 11:12:50:
> From: "Matthijs Mekking" <matth...@pletterpet.nl>
> To: dnsop@ietf.org
> Date: 02/27/2020 11:13
> Subject: Re: [External] [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc
drafts
> Sent by: "DNSOP" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org>
>
>
>
> On 2/26/20 11:28 PM, Andrew M. Hettinger wrote:
> > "DNSOP" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org> wrote on 02/26/2020 08:34:55:
> >
> >> From: "Vladimír Čunát" <vladimir.cunat+i...@nic..cz>
> >> To: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
> >> Cc: "Andrew M. Hettinger" <ahettin...@prominic.net>
> >> Date: 02/26/2020 08:35
> >> Subject: Re: [External] [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc
> > drafts
> >> Sent by: "DNSOP" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org>
> >>
> >> On 2/25/20 8:07 PM, Andrew M. Hettinger wrote:
> >> > Frankly, you've got it exactly the wrong way around: even with
httpsvc
> >> > speced out completely, it will take time for it to be deployed to
> >> > browsers. That's assuming you can get enough buying from (mostly)
> >> > google to even make it happen at all.
> >>
> >> I don't think it's so simple. The current ANAME draft specifies new
> >> behavior for resolvers, and there I'd expect even slower overall
> >> upgrades/deployment than in browsers. Also I'm unsure how big a part
of
> >> authoritative implementations will want to do ANAME expansion. (It
> >> seems unlikely for "our" Knot DNS, for example.)
> >>
> >
> > Is there actually a commitment from browser makers to implement it?
>
> ANAME and its proprietary friends try to solve the issue it within the
> DNS, so there is no need for commitment from browser makers.
>
> - Matthijs
>
I was talking about httpssvc, obviously.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
