Re: [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts

2020-02-20 Thread Paul Vixie
On Thursday, 20 February 2020 22:15:17 UTC Evan Hunt wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 09:29:31AM +0100, Matthijs Mekking wrote: > > 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. > > ... >

Re: [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts

2020-02-20 Thread Evan Hunt
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 09:29:31AM +0100, Matthijs Mekking wrote: > 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. CNAME at the apex wasn't really the problem. Getting browsers to display content

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-07.txt

2020-02-20 Thread Stephen Morris
The update addresses comments from the Secdir and Genart reviews. In particular: 1) The text proposed by Tony Finch concerning SHA-1 has been included verbatim into the draft. (However, the suggestion to make informative references to some web sites that discuss SHA-1 collisions was not taken

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-07.txt

2020-02-20 Thread internet-drafts
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF. Title : Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG) Authors : Francis Dupont

Re: [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts

2020-02-20 Thread Matthijs Mekking
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, Ma

Re: [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts

2020-02-20 Thread Shane Kerr
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 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/

Re: [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts

2020-02-20 Thread Klaus Malorny
Hi, thanks all for responding, this was very informative for me. The lack of interest for the ANAME draft is a bit pity. We have some customer requests in this direction and I was hoping to be able to offer them a standards compliant solution. So now I have to rethink our strategy. Regard

Re: [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts

2020-02-20 Thread Matthijs Mekking
On 2/18/20 5:17 PM, Olli Vanhoja wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 16:20 Klaus Malorny > 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 d