Re: [Bundled-domain-names] A suggestion for 2017
Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Tue, 03 January 2017 01:35 UTC
Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: bundled-domain-names@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bundled-domain-names@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FF4F12940A for <bundled-domain-names@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 17:35:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P3FRefuKZGC1 for <bundled-domain-names@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 17:35:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FCBB1293F3 for <bundled-domain-names@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 17:35:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB66B1FCB8B; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 01:35:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DEF5160045; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 01:35:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47FA516006E; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 01:35:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 59xplb4QGgji; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 01:35:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c27-253-115-14.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [27.253.115.14]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B642160045; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 01:35:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C5E5E65697; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 12:35:05 +1100 (EST)
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20161228195030.GA7469@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20161228211701.30364.qmail@ary.lan> <CADyWQ+EoGAxAUexteiUNN55Bd-s_79f4_vV3evWin4Pn8RfWUw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612301239370.43575@ary.qy>
In-reply-to: Your message of "30 Dec 2016 13:48:20 -0500." <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612301239370.43575@ary.qy>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 12:35:05 +1100
Message-Id: <20170103013505.A6C5E5E65697@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bundled-domain-names/9qjOLzAwBaiiJBilWGnfFpV90Eo>
Cc: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, bundled-domain-names@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Bundled-domain-names] A suggestion for 2017
X-BeenThere: bundled-domain-names@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of \"bundled domain names\"" <bundled-domain-names.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bundled-domain-names>, <mailto:bundled-domain-names-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bundled-domain-names/>
List-Post: <mailto:bundled-domain-names@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bundled-domain-names-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bundled-domain-names>, <mailto:bundled-domain-names-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 01:35:28 -0000
In message <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612301239370.43575@ary.qy>, "John R Levine" writes : > On Fri, 30 Dec 2016, tjw ietf wrote: > > I would love to see a solid draft appear that discussed 'CNAME at APEX' in > > an attempt to standardize what every vendor has been working on. > > It would be nice, but it's a big can o' worms. The issue is that the DNS > has two separate and only loosely connected parts. The larger part is the > binary query/response protocol which everyone implements, since any DNS > client in principle has to be able to query any DNS server and understand > the response. > > The other part is the master file format and AXFR and IXFR or whatever you > use to provide zone files or zone-file-like-things to your authoritative > servers. You can use whatever you want since only your own authoritative > servers need to understand each other. So while a lot of servers use the > 1034/1035 master file format and AXFR/IXFR, a lot don't. They may use > some other format (djbdns) or they may use a database (powerdns) or they > may invent them on the fly (various hacks at Cloudflare and other places.) > They may use rsync or database replication or something else to keep the > servers in sync. > > So while there are a lot of places with an ANAME hack (which is useful > more places than pseudo-cname at the apex), the way they do it depends on > a lot of stuff beyond what you can put in a master file. > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly > > _______________________________________________ > Bundled-domain-names mailing list > Bundled-domain-names@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bundled-domain-names And 99.99% of ANAME/CNAME at the apex would be better solved with a "name to server name" record that is application specific. That is what the ANAME/CNAME is being used for. We tried to do a generic record with SRV but people didn't take it up for http. "name ANAME server" would become a collection of A, AAAA and HTTPSRV records (rather than a collection of A and AAAA records) with the aim to retire the ANAME processing at date <TBD>. Any existing ANAME construct would become just HTTPSRV as of that date. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
- [Bundled-domain-names] A suggestion for 2017 Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [Bundled-domain-names] A suggestion for 2017 John Levine
- Re: [Bundled-domain-names] A suggestion for 2017 tjw ietf
- Re: [Bundled-domain-names] A suggestion for 2017 John R Levine
- Re: [Bundled-domain-names] A suggestion for 2017 Mark Andrews