On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 02:46:05PM +1100, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022, at 14:18, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker wrote:
> > This (mostly implicit) requirement is a potential barrier for adoption of
> > the HTTPS RRtype, and while the precondition is very often going to be
> > satisfied, I wanted to get a sense for whether we should make the
> > requirement more explicit, and possibly more prominent in the document
> > (e.g., mention it in the Introduction). I don't know what the right
> > answer is, but it seems important enough to ensure that the topic receives
> > deliberate consideration.
>
> Your point about highlighting more than loss of functionality is a good one.
> The idea that request semantics might be altered by swapping the scheme is
> far more relevant.
>
> That said, I'm comfortable with deploying with the upgrade requirement as
> stated. While we did have a number of examples where the assumed
> HTTP<->HTTPS equivalence did not hold in the past, the diminishing share of
> cleartext HTTP usage is overwhelmingly the vestiges that do not have any
> HTTPS service on the same name.
>
> As noted, those servers with a need to maintain distinct resources that
> differ only in scheme simply cannot use the HTTPS RR. That is entirely
> appropriate.
>
For clarity, I'm also comfortable with the upgrade requirement as stated;
this discuss was intended to just relate to how and how much we talk about
the requirement.
-Ben
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
