+1 to the liveness of SVCB. As seen in the work on GitHub, there’s engagement from people working on ESNI and other use cases. I’ve been following the draft on GitHub and testing implementations, for example.
Tommy > On Feb 18, 2020, at 10:07 AM, Eric Orth > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hasn't been discussed much lately on this list (I keep meaning to get back to > the chain-length discussion from a month or so back), but SVCB is definitely > very much still alive. Lots of work is going on in its github to prepare the > next draft, so I assume we'll have another round of discussions here soon > whenever that is ready. > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:17 AM Olli Vanhoja <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 16:20 Klaus Malorny <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop> > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
