Re: [DNSOP] Root reasons (aka "why") - HTTP vs SRV vs ANAME vs CNAME

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Fri, 09 November 2018 00:14 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 47216130DFE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 16:14:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
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 5nqZEkEDRHu0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 16:14:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F827130DF1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 16:14:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A97DC79; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 19:14:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 08 Nov 2018 19:14:05 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=vXZikYpYLVW9W36SOjpYIFN9INZIRd87uLLHrgo19 sU=; b=lOJfDrVcKjR2J8Br9HX2Fk4zt29K+PwQlIwzgIS5AKq2b/dyHYfvOmng8 jD7rDOeGf/CQB3tfBeoaMgHQNuVamvrK+HyV5Q7gsAAauA5KIt/h3rpID4MHo8ej k/1FJhaebVyYclRY2KD9iCyc1IliyZl5VEuAc08/oYQ/ppX3LovZSol8andsHBSx OmDHRKeLzfM7st8+hiGukpXClMYc0IwigymsjO0dILK1VuYbKYuRbcunkyWGk2+W MP8WqdO+wN/+xf9zQqm4Fo/r0DNFOzxY55DNDU0ST/WlR08QAnYq/yHWJFJAVU52 FGp7If38WXVC03g61GiXuc5dQZugw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:S9HkWyD5oIIjqS6X2xPp8lADuWk0HQjzEAMrmEwElXaBlYoM75IFDQ>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:S9HkW4PLv0SSgBYaAx0Fo4KtfFsnkYjdAOM9IXzTkiDza2yCmgX6hA> <xmx:S9HkW0_QR6bSddimjpBQAMNnhteVvT9XIKPhb2aCkhgk8kdQzjyb4w> <xmx:S9HkW6EUT3BLG0xeag5Wp5QPwPmGDbnNUiZ-yvxcM0MqfGVRI3JS4A> <xmx:S9HkWzh_EkNTT3gdtCK3XlIJIbCoyYF0F_UBaHPBXorKOYFvmXB3Nw> <xmx:S9HkW_s8R44MstKw-avOwFquK8nhUDK_FYcnq80IelMeF1UfbbEaQQ> <xmx:TdHkWy_7B4rVj_W0ZBG_6qbDh3Dvf2RqNG8fpToJNy31TZBUCHZIXg>
Received: from [192.168.1.154] (unknown [195.147.34.210]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A1199E4687; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 19:14:03 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16A404)
In-Reply-To: <7702EE25-1B10-4880-804C-C7CF5FE609C8@isc.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 00:14:01 +0000
Cc: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>, dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A7834682-C078-4E7F-985E-8FBBF387AC66@dotat.at>
References: <CAH1iCirLfSEUcTf=p5bHuFJSFie_BoPh4X=89w2mpxgNpR9HkA@mail.gmail.com> <2BDA0411-202D-4199-A43B-3FDC50DC47F5@isoc.org> <CAH1iCirdkU-jYLRGeOm3DcdsReShyOez3oU5hw5sJYEtQyyqGw@mail.gmail.com> <D378E8F5-A667-4649-90ED-7C3612F0A013@isoc.org> <a4087032-acb2-0f2e-f84b-31d2885d8390@bellis.me.uk> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811081801580.3596@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <7702EE25-1B10-4880-804C-C7CF5FE609C8@isc.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1XULfN-26HCsAzeJF94eECxtc1Y>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Root reasons (aka "why") - HTTP vs SRV vs ANAME vs CNAME
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 00:14:08 -0000

> On 8 Nov 2018, at 20:13, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 9 Nov 2018, at 5:27 am, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
>> 
>> HTTP RRs risk adding a third option, where the web provider has to have
>> documentation asking whether the DNS provider supports HTTP RRs and if so
>> the site admin needs both these addresses and this hostname.
> 
> The providers that use CNAME add HTTP to that description and say to add HTTP
> at the zone apexes or anywhere else another record is published at the same name.  

[ I think you mean “web providers” here, i.e., not us. ] But remember: the goal is to make the DNS easier to use for people who don’t know about the restrictions on CNAMEs. Any time we say, “oh, those other people need to to explain things at greater length to make our stuff easier to use”, we are not solving the problem. The end goal is to simplify documentation used by non-experts that deals with 3rd party web providers and 3rd party DNS providers.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at