Re: [DNSOP] New draft for ALIAS/ANAME type

"Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> Mon, 03 April 2017 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B43129501 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 12:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 7py06-wjvEiW for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 12:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shannon.7bits.nl (shannon.7bits.nl [IPv6:2a01:1b0:202:40::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4809C12950B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 12:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.137.1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:610:666:0:84e4:75f2:3020:8a8e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: peter) by shannon.7bits.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56C54CD996; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 21:57:51 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
To: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 21:57:52 +0200
Message-ID: <95E305D4-D7D0-4F14-9314-942D76CC2F90@powerdns.com>
In-Reply-To: <3A4E2834-2BD4-4DC3-9D5A-A15B3DCDA738@isoc.org>
References: <CA+nkc8Bwc6eQz6YPAnMLNjvHm4POLTyvsTRQC5Pn+R4iTzaB-g@mail.gmail.com> <20170330230806.6273.qmail@ary.lan> <20170330231358.GA92307@isc.org> <3A4E2834-2BD4-4DC3-9D5A-A15B3DCDA738@isoc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-kQns1wDZwuu4osYjBUszJCEso4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New draft for ALIAS/ANAME type
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:57:56 -0000

Hi Dan,

On 3 Apr 2017, at 21:40, Dan York wrote:

> I very much like the idea of this draft, given that I use multiple DNS 
> hosting providers who all have their own unique (and proprietary) way 
> of doing "CNAME flattening at the apex". I think the reality of 
> today's user experience with domain names is that we are increasingly 
> dropping the "www" or any other kind of second-level domain. So we 
> want to talk about our sites as "example.com<http://example.com>" ... 
> but as the publisher we want to use CDNs, load balancers and other 
> systems that need us to use a CNAME. A standardized way of doing this 
> would be helpful.

Thank you for your kind words. As I said in another post indeed, I hope 
this draft (assuming it becomes an RFC) will remove one point of 
suffering for those who use multiple DNS providers.

> One comment...
>
> On Mar 30, 2017, at 7:13 PM, Evan Hunt 
> <each@isc.org<mailto:each@isc.org>> wrote:
> >
> > (Incidentally, I'm working on a somewhat more ambitious ANAME draft 
> with
> > Peter van Dijk and Anthony Eden, who has kindly agreed to merge his 
> efforts
> > with ours. I expect to post it in a few days, stay tuned.)
>
> ... I think it would be helpful for the new draft to have a few 
> examples of what the RR would look like in a zone file.  (This was the 
> one component I found missing from Anthony's ALIAS draft.)

Our current draft-draft does not have that yet but I fully agree. I find 
many published RFCs are lacking in examples and test vectors, and I’ll 
make sure we do better on this.

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/