IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Naked domain resolution with DNSSEC

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Fri, 25 October 2013 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD5E11E83B3 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 02:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.755
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.755 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RkW4r6ZVfcll for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 02:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F9E11E8396 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 02:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [203.83.33.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 914BC8A031; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:36:53 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 05:36:50 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: Jiankang Yao <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
Message-ID: <20131025093648.GB12997@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <21069.41000.63116.736893@gro.dd.org> <F04702D34F7A2740A330302703120864384C8916@SINEX14MBXC421.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> <21074.61535.976353.482373@gro.dd.org> <E66B38BB793BAF439EF374F3E7EBEE464B6202F6@SINEX14MBXC415.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> <21095.58207.781300.353688@gro.dd.org> <E66B38BB793BAF439EF374F3E7EBEE464B620758@SINEX14MBXC415.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> <C94CB03B-44C8-4792-9097-141D812EC01C@rfc1035.com> <E66B38BB793BAF439EF374F3E7EBEE464B620972@SINEX14MBXC415.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> <21096.7524.908259.719737@gro.dd.org> <2013102517253369957870@cnnic.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2013102517253369957870@cnnic.cn>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Sourav Sain <sosain@microsoft.com>, "dnsext@ietf.org Group" <dnsext@ietf.org>, Thirunadha Reddy <thirunr@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Naked domain resolution with DNSSEC
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:37:25 -0000

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 05:25:48PM +0800, Jiankang Yao wrote:
> 
> BNAME, which directs both itself and its children, may solve it. the draft about BNAME was discussed 3 years ago.

> _______________________________________________

Yes, and if it were compatible with DNSSEC, perhaps people would have
pursued it.  But it won't work with DNSSEC.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email