Re: [DNSOP] Fundamental ANAME problems

Paul Vixie <> Mon, 05 November 2018 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56FA0127332 for <>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:36:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fXmfboRxb4fZ for <>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:36:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCC09127133 for <>; 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 (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 608BA892C6 for <>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 17:36:23 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 09:36:23 -0800
From: Paul Vixie <>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.25 (Windows/20180328)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fundamental ANAME problems
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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