> On 8 Nov 2018, at 5:07 am, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>
>
> Tony Finch wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> And even if you can get the recursive server addresses, you should still
>> go through the name service switch to deal with names that aren't in the
>> DNS.
>
> agreed.
For A and , but not for HTTP,
Mr Paul is correct - getdns is the best path for developers.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 1:07 AM Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>
> Tony Finch wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > And even if you can get the recursive server addresses, you should still
> > go through the name service switch to deal with names that aren't in
Tony Finch wrote:
...
And even if you can get the recursive server addresses, you should still
go through the name service switch to deal with names that aren't in the
DNS.
agreed.
The custom DNS stub resolvers that I know about (adns, ldns, libevent)
reimplement the libc resolver, with
Vladimír Čunát wrote:
> On 11/7/18 4:00 PM, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> > Can you point to a major browser that does *not* implement its own
> > resolver already?
>
> I believe Firefox on Linux uses libc call (in my basically default
> setup).
There's a problem on Unix that there isn't a way to
On 2018-11-05 06:10 -0500, Vladimír Čunát wrote:
On 11/2/18 10:41 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
Speaking as a co-author of ANAME, I agree about this. URI, SRV, a proposed
new HTTP RRtype, whatever - service lookup is absolutely the correct way to
accomplish this goal.
However, browser vendors are
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 06:11, Vladimír Čunát
wrote:
> On 11/2/18 10:41 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
> > Speaking as a co-author of ANAME, I agree about this. URI, SRV, a
> proposed
> > new HTTP RRtype, whatever - service lookup is absolutely the correct way
> to
> > accomplish this goal.
> >
> > However,
On 11/2/18 10:41 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
> Speaking as a co-author of ANAME, I agree about this. URI, SRV, a proposed
> new HTTP RRtype, whatever - service lookup is absolutely the correct way to
> accomplish this goal.
>
> However, browser vendors are *not doing that*, and I've given up hope that
>
> On Nov 2, 2018, at 17:57, Dan York wrote:
>
> Are there any other publishers of websites on this list who use CDNs in front
> of their sites - and who are interested in the whole “CNAME at apex” issue?
>
> Given the ANAME discussions and other continuing “CNAME at apex” discussions,
> I
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 10:16:25PM +0100, Måns Nilsson wrote:
> At the risk of sounding like a repetitive bore, what is actually needed
> is a way to say "for that domain name, apex or not, https[1] services are
> over there >". Without messing up the entire node in the tree and
> causing
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Any website publishers who use CDNs on the list? Date:
Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 01:11:08PM +0100 Quoting Måns Nilsson
(mansa...@besserwisser.org):
> Subject: [DNSOP] Any website publishers who use CDNs on the list? Date: Fri,
> Nov 02, 2018 at 10:57:33AM + Quoting Da
Subject: [DNSOP] Any website publishers who use CDNs on the list? Date: Fri,
Nov 02, 2018 at 10:57:33AM + Quoting Dan York (y...@isoc.org):
> DNSOP subscribers,
>
> Are there any other publishers of websites on this list who use CDNs in front
> of their sites - and who ar
DNSOP subscribers,
Are there any other publishers of websites on this list who use CDNs in front
of their sites - and who are interested in the whole “CNAME at apex” issue?
Given the ANAME discussions and other continuing “CNAME at apex” discussions, I
started putting together a short draft
12 matches
Mail list logo
