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

"Peter van Dijk" <> Mon, 03 April 2017 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B43129501 for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 12:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7py06-wjvEiW for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 12:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:1b0:202:40::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4809C12950B for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 12:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (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 (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56C54CD996; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 21:57:51 +0200 (CEST)
From: Peter van Dijk <>
To: "" <>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 21:57:52 +0200
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <20170330230806.6273.qmail@ary.lan> <> <>
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: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New draft for ALIAS/ANAME type
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 "<>" ... 
> 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 
> <<>> 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