On 2/21/20 2:23 PM, Klaus Malorny wrote: > I see a major drawback in comparison to the ANAME draft, namely that > there seems to be no fallback for old browsers (and robot software > accessing websites) being defined. Of course, authoritative name > servers could implement a similar mechanism as specified in the ANAME > draft. The question would be whether it needs to be addressed in the > HTTPSSVC/SVCB specification in an appropriate manner.
My understanding of the plan is that for fallbacks we'll have what people are using now, e.g. that http redirect. Perhaps you can elaborate on why that doesn't seem sufficient. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
