Re: [DNSOP] Fundamental ANAME problems

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Mon, 05 November 2018 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.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 56FA0127332 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:36:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 fXmfboRxb4fZ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:36:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCC09127133 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:36:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:8de1:7fa:37ed:8cc4] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:8de1:7fa:37ed:8cc4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 608BA892C6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 17:36:23 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <5BE07F97.5080706@redbarn.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 09:36:23 -0800
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.25 (Windows/20180328)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CAH1iCirXYsYB3sAo8f1Jy-q4meLmQAPSFO-7x5idDufdT_unXQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811021543210.24450@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20181105083526.GA12204@besserwisser.org> <7704C350-256A-42E3-B718-38FD449A2ADE@hopcount.ca> <770d5dc8-b8a3-c1c3-553f-0e9504389750@bellis.me.uk>
In-Reply-To: <770d5dc8-b8a3-c1c3-553f-0e9504389750@bellis.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1iH-i15-Y8CQ42ptg7oncG-cG0o>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fundamental ANAME problems
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: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 17:36:26 -0000

second reply, on a more general topic:

the "HTTP URI" will require a change to bert's teaching resolver (tres), 
which correctly handles unrecognized code points and thus would need no 
changes at all if the additional data weren't mandatory. i think in 
modern terminology, if your proposed addition to the DNS protocol 
requires a change to "tres", it's (a) not "cheap", and (b) part of "the 
camel". we are adding state, logic, and signal. (ouch.)

more broadly: most ideas are bad, including mine, and especially when 
DNS is the subject area. self-deception about how cheap they will be 
looks wretched on us. let's not be that. if a change is to be made, let 
it be because there is _no_ existing way within the standard to 
accomplish some vital task. SRV's lack of wildcard support is adequate 
cause. two RTT's on a cache miss is not. apparent cheapness is not.

-- 
P Vixie