In message <[email protected]>, Joe Abley writes : > > On 17 May 2014, at 7:51, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On May 17, 2014, at 3:12 AM, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Or are there other uses for ENAME beyond what the HTTP/CDN crowd do > >>> with CNAMEs today? > >> > >> I would encourage both. ENAME is just service agnostic. > > > > It might be worth actively pushing the CDN folks to go the SRV > direction. > > It seems to me that the CDN people have a solution that works for them > right now.
But not all web hosters have a "solution" that doesn't require custom nameservers to solve. So yes we do need to push the CDN people to get their customers to publish SRV records so that everyone is using the same solution in the end. Additionally the CDN hack (and yes it is a hack not a solution) doesn't help when you want to host some protocols locally and others at a CDN for the same name. This is very much "it works for what I want to do" not it "works for everyone". SRV will work all the time once the clients support it. > With respect to using SRV for HTTP (which I agree would be great) the gap > is on the client side. It's an application issue, and I don't see a lot > of work to be done in this working group. > > > Joe > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
