Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CNAME at apex

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 22 June 2018 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 54BA5130EDA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=qBHYY0qQ; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=QSM6dd2d
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 6kGRI28oMPi5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 412C3130EC0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 3696 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2018 19:18:44 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=e6d.5b2d4b94.k1806; bh=nmOhCv60S5Ccw6pkkfanjh1uFWZVWufRYKUQlzaT++8=; b=qBHYY0qQONxnJfAk7Rh4f6507UWid5NaLsZCIFp9G+xCj84g7w/qKAxJts85cY514z8UJQXasrsn6dsd56iv/jA38YBejj7KU6Yct2CmlpUVvxdaxfwzOT4/2UBcF9BHrTl4P+jE0589MYdEueHXvgPVA+gflupHIy4qBYQJxAry8sdqwxpS4IeffEacnIT0QMxLnABXV7/NjBDt+eMVXSVpxCzMKxv3M+S5Sp03W3qKdb/fPhR0JlIGvPaKb8i6
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=e6d.5b2d4b94.k1806; bh=nmOhCv60S5Ccw6pkkfanjh1uFWZVWufRYKUQlzaT++8=; b=QSM6dd2dmLNjksbyjTQ/iOQyy7fGdxwN5ydrBj8j9OWT6k8VWxkcvU4Sv6o2toK1hgREEtVyyu33Oero54O7ERbo/Pz+eid73l98aQxzVrzMAFPiib6RWQIdzeIiWOEG/QUUHvHVW8aSPt6w0cF9ptnoTj4KgbCXtXeTs209o4IgIJ+b713+Rp/I9u3Yzynnz95MmXPvh/bo7e3Ze4DVcy2kHD8iPtzmEOOMzRVLUnz1p/7ivNF/aqtOOGQZNsqh
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 22 Jun 2018 19:18:43 -0000
Date: 22 Jun 2018 15:18:43 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1806221517590.29829@ary.qy>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Evan Hunt" <each@isc.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20180622182752.GA83312@isc.org>
References: <CAJhMdTO2kj+nUqESg3ew=wwZuB9OzkJE6pST=mae7pHiEk4-Qw@mail.gmail.com> <20180619190213.B76962846E19@ary.qy> <20180622182752.GA83312@isc.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/3Hiqpbb5PEOANhTQCCYEZ3BwOZM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CNAME at apex
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 22 Jun 2018 19:18:47 -0000

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Evan Hunt wrote:
>> specified version of ANAME, and it avoids the ANAME ugliness of making
>> authoritative servers do recursive lookups.
>
> Minor clarification here: ANAME doesn't require the authoritative server
> itself to do recursion; it requires it to have access to a reursive
> server.

I suppose, but that seems to me a distinction without a difference. 
Either way we end up importing all of the failure modes of a recursive 
server into an authoritative one.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly