Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-aname-01.txt

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Mon, 05 February 2018 12:38 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 B29D712AF83 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 04:38:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 6dIzgbL-7ieE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 04:38:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.131]) (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 301001201F2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 04:38:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:57263) by ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1eig2p-000402-LS (Exim 4.89_1) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Mon, 05 Feb 2018 12:38:47 +0000
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 12:38:47 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
cc: Stefan Bühler <ietf-dnsop@stbuehler.de>, dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20180203221046.GA8571@isc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1802051237130.30577@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <151573473976.18703.16142464801623244164@ietfa.amsl.com> <102bc41e-d2cf-e184-4bec-b1fdf945ae3e@stbuehler.de> <20180126200942.GA7808@isc.org> <29db47a4-2355-2eae-de68-b4bb18b4ebaf@stbuehler.de> <20180203221046.GA8571@isc.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/4HGSnM6RY5LCww0btvbWKcbsZPA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-aname-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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 Feb 2018 12:38:59 -0000

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> wrote:
>
> No, an ANAME-aware resolver would ignore those records, re-query for
> the ANAME target, and validate the response from there - same as it does
> now with a CNAME. As long as the ANAME is validly signed, it's just a
> chain query.

That only works if the downstream resolvers (stubs etc.) are not
validating. (Or maybe if they are ANAME-aware but the upstream resolver
has no way of knowing that.)

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
Malin, Hebrides: Southwest, veering northwest 5 to 7, occasionally gale 8 at
first in Hebrides, then perhaps gale 8 later. Rough or very rough, becoming
high later in west. Rain then snow showers. Good, occasionally poor.