6 ms·

Take a look instead at the DNS SVCB and HTTPS resource records, which have already been adopted in practice: - Service binding and parameter specification via

by ivanr 4y ago

Take a look instead at the DNS SVCB and HTTPS resource records, which have already been adopted in practice: - Service binding and parameter specification via the DNS (DNS SVCB and HTTPS RRs) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https/11/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https...

xg15 4y ago
Beat me to it, I was also wondering if the OP proposal hasn't been completely obsoleted by SVCB/HTTPS at this point. Still reveals a sad picture of the ecosystem that a standard which addressed the same shortcomings existed since 2009 but was completely ignored until Cloudflare reinvented it in a proprietary fashion. On the other hand, expecting that end users suddenly start typing "https+srv://" everywhere for exactly no added benefit except to make standards wonks happy, doesn't exactly inspire much confidence in the standard's authors either...
- mananaysiempre 4y ago
  The -00 draft[1] did not require the +srv. I would guess the blame lies with security problems when user agents with support for the SRV record see one thing and those without see another. (The drafts go up to -05, though this is not apparent from the posted link.) [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jennings-http-srv-00 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jennings-http-sr...
pdenton 4y ago
Does this deprecate TTLS records? I've only just begun to generate those
Bender 4y ago
It appears Google implemented the records type65, but not type64. Also Youtube. I am curious what browsers are leveraging this currently. I can't find many other domains using it yet. It seems Apple use it on some subdomains [1] dig +noall +answer -t type65 google.com google.com. 2857 IN HTTPS 1 . alpn="h2,h3" I see some hits in my name server stats for https/svcb types so I guess bots are looking for it. Perhaps scanning how widely adopted? The list of types has grown since I last looked. [2] People have been busy. [1] - https://serverfault.com/questions/1075522/whats-the-use-case-of-svcb-type-65-service-binding-rr https://serverfault.com/questions/1075522/whats-the-use-case... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DNS_record_types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DNS_record_types
- esbranson 4y ago
  Chrome at least, behind a flag.[1] [1] https://chromestatus.com/feature/5485544526053376 https://chromestatus.com/feature/5485544526053376
apitman 4y ago
Does it support specifying the HTTPS port? This is a very important use case for selfhosting. I skimmed through Cloudflare's article[0] but didn't see any mention of it. [0]: https://blog.cloudflare.com/speeding-up-https-and-http-3-negotiation-with-dns/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/speeding-up-https-and-http-3-neg...
- apitman 4y ago
  Ok after a little searching the spec itself talks about a port parameter in section 7.2. So it would appear SVCB can indeed replace HTTP SRV for my purposes.

by ivanr 4y ago

xg15 4y ago

Beat me to it, I was also wondering if the OP proposal hasn't been completely obsoleted by SVCB/HTTPS at this point. Still reveals a sad picture of the ecosystem that a standard which addressed the same shortcomings existed since 2009 but was completely ignored until Cloudflare reinvented it in a proprietary fashion. On the other hand, expecting that end users suddenly start typing "https+srv://" everywhere for exactly no added benefit except to make standards wonks happy, doesn't exactly inspire much confidence in the standard's authors either...

mananaysiempre 4y ago
The -00 draft[1] did not require the +srv. I would guess the blame lies with security problems when user agents with support for the SRV record see one thing and those without see another. (The drafts go up to -05, though this is not apparent from the posted link.) [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jennings-http-srv-00 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jennings-http-sr...

pdenton 4y ago

Does this deprecate TTLS records? I've only just begun to generate those

Bender 4y ago

It appears Google implemented the records type65, but not type64. Also Youtube. I am curious what browsers are leveraging this currently. I can't find many other domains using it yet. It seems Apple use it on some subdomains [1] dig +noall +answer -t type65 google.com google.com. 2857 IN HTTPS 1 . alpn="h2,h3" I see some hits in my name server stats for https/svcb types so I guess bots are looking for it. Perhaps scanning how widely adopted? The list of types has grown since I last looked. [2] People have been busy. [1] - https://serverfault.com/questions/1075522/whats-the-use-case-of-svcb-type-65-service-binding-rr https://serverfault.com/questions/1075522/whats-the-use-case... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DNS_record_types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DNS_record_types

esbranson 4y ago
Chrome at least, behind a flag.[1] [1] https://chromestatus.com/feature/5485544526053376 https://chromestatus.com/feature/5485544526053376

apitman 4y ago

Does it support specifying the HTTPS port? This is a very important use case for selfhosting. I skimmed through Cloudflare's article[0] but didn't see any mention of it. [0]: https://blog.cloudflare.com/speeding-up-https-and-http-3-negotiation-with-dns/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/speeding-up-https-and-http-3-neg...

apitman 4y ago
Ok after a little searching the spec itself talks about a port parameter in section 7.2. So it would appear SVCB can indeed replace HTTP SRV for my purposes.