Re: [DNSOP] Fundamental ANAME problems

Ray Bellis <> Mon, 05 November 2018 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2EE2127133 for <>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:53:51 -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 ghzGPQtO4Z-b for <>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:53:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7309212008A for <>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:53:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]:58486 helo=Rays-MacBook-Pro.local) by ([]:465) with esmtpsa ( (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1gJj4M-0006RB-CI (Exim 4.72) for (return-path <>); Mon, 05 Nov 2018 17:53:46 +0000
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Ray Bellis <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 00:53:46 +0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
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 17:53:52 -0000

On 06/11/2018 00:36, Paul Vixie wrote:
> 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.)

The additional data is not mandatory.

> 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.

Ack, except on that very last point (see previous message) where I think 
we need to consider the relative cost-benefit-analysis of the alternatives.