IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl> Tue, 11 June 2019 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <matthijs@pletterpet.nl>
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 139D112000E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 01:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 bhrcbNGtvUoP for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 01:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lb1-smtp-cloud7.xs4all.net (lb1-smtp-cloud7.xs4all.net [194.109.24.24]) (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 904CE1200E3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 01:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:980:4eb1:1:5596:d18c:29c1:5d72] ([IPv6:2001:980:4eb1:1:5596:d18c:29c1:5d72]) by smtp-cloud7.xs4all.net with ESMTPSA id acCCh1yKN5qKaacCDhwoDI; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:31:57 +0200
To: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
From: Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl>
Message-ID: <3b136e34-7ec0-e144-2c2a-0885185ec2b1@pletterpet.nl>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:31:55 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfNHP0Nr4vNm2yseug4Ao6aUECE+xqGzThOPZxTAWVB0TNbG0Md1mMyKIdmB2Xo93ID41Xu65QHp9o9oL8hPl7Np1hVRQ8HYSFQ3OOWZ4+BA9sDuBefiK dhplAKd2SICbw4QNIfCoDDR/K5vTkw8Yw510C3yvd7/yrVI5ACB2bp2dBR/1CEEYNQa8X7JYwOcRi5jw81S0vCIzGS06iLt3lpX2loctKgRLgpM2jIf0KjTp ZroObwPrBLVJq1f59FeETSJ2sLbu4PgyoGjBgC7qxq0=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/7ZKB4N4kFIXC3SSMVHzA3e-rOJk>
Subject: [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: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 08:32:03 -0000

All,


While working on the next version of the ANAME draft, one additional
question came up: When querying for A or AAAA, we want to include the
ANAME in the response as a signal to anticipate aliasing.  Should we
include the ANAME record in the answer section or the additional section?

The main argument for putting it in the additional section is that given
the experience with DNAME, putting the ANAME in the answer section there
is a risk of interop problems (because there is an unexpected record in
the answer section).

The main argument for putting it in the answer section is that putting
it in the additional section implies a lower trust level, and that the
record is optional and can be removed when minimizing responses.

Does the working group have any thoughts on this?

Issue is tracked here: https://github.com/each/draft-aname/issues/62


Best regards,

Matthijs

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email