IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME in answer or additional section [issue #62]

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Wed, 12 June 2019 06:42 UTC

Return-Path: <each@isc.org>
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 0BAE2120077 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 23:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 AAKeXJvMeHi3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 23:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) (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 96F1E12009C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 23:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [149.20.1.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13B233AB03B; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:42:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id D7E5C3F5CA; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:42:01 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:42:01 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: Anthony Eden <anthony.eden@dnsimple.com>
Cc: Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190612064201.GA63948@isc.org>
References: <3b136e34-7ec0-e144-2c2a-0885185ec2b1@pletterpet.nl> <20190612000459.GA60387@isc.org> <CAOZSDgCB5wmnYEP4Kf6v7v6tY=F=jwX3zFS04vCt5GmwOq07Sw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOZSDgCB5wmnYEP4Kf6v7v6tY=F=jwX3zFS04vCt5GmwOq07Sw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1Z7sxYbJuq0r7LSj9Qq3pIp2gnU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] ANAME in answer or additional section [issue #62]
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: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:42:05 -0000

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 08:11:51PM -0400, Anthony Eden wrote:
> I'm a fan of Michael's suggestion of using EDNS to signal that the
> authoritative should return ALIAS vs synthesizing. Any reason this won't
> work?

Not that I can think of, but it adds significant implementation complexity
in order to solve a problem that I'm not at all sure we have.

-- 
Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email