IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] fyi [Pdns-users] Please test: ALIAS/ANAME apex record in PowerDNS

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Sun, 21 September 2014 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25D041A02DC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Sep 2014 15:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 gRIihZ63_BkT for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Sep 2014 15:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com (mail-pa0-f51.google.com [209.85.220.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1AD61A02D0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Sep 2014 15:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id eu11so1604859pac.10 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Sep 2014 15:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=7UEbcWyDHY9LfWGGO93YRqf+xL5yONnyWQTquljrNVg=; b=Bb2FRUSvL7TzEQhFRul4OwRmDSztQLxhP0ye1hfI2RP8lbHzdXmwr33dJGKyCGgN7+ yRKEgnAvvUGCyRqHGwrShva8wordz1vFFLfbNugz4bNYIVRpMUV2GXokDV9teLp7PC8c hNOe7PgQlXVXqgDOyei4rvffTfCaThNVXI4y5IJDicaCOuPW2OvlbcV8aPSDqNTtnFOl YiQmxoPWgA4vE5imVPax7i3njo/hRRmY9e1/vgxc7MJ+8t0z6yk9okcn6IjAvbqQNC5N 7i+3Uq0Yfwm70GJWhyJRy2mxud7PSQ2r0n09UDj80HnLqvb/tSQSAqv6GP3By0/ACH5X 2vTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnQWM32SJeUSqZ4DtHHhn8RWV/PS3dboM7vgDalPimhlha2wU2UHfDZbbBrIxrlpaS8xrrg
X-Received: by 10.68.135.70 with SMTP id pq6mr19890637pbb.10.1411338603306; Sun, 21 Sep 2014 15:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.11] ([73.162.11.38]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ji11sm7509530pbd.37.2014.09.21.15.30.02 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 21 Sep 2014 15:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_32A5C0B0-A143-43CB-8578-9A7E729C8184"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <541F41B7.6070105@redbarn.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 15:30:00 -0700
Message-Id: <5A2C6AE6-3BF8-441F-B65F-89FCF952414C@virtualized.org>
References: <20140921115222.GB16178@xs.powerdns.com> <541F1AE8.6010709@redbarn.org> <457731AF-E11F-4B1C-AC32-5E1AEE4EC5E5@gmail.com> <541F3D5A.7000205@dougbarton.us> <349FA254-AF50-457E-9504-A8707C5B57DB@virtualized.org> <541F41B7.6070105@redbarn.org>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/I5k0ieo3YIZPr6L0onbDI2lioT8
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] fyi [Pdns-users] Please test: ALIAS/ANAME apex record in PowerDNS
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 22:30:06 -0000

Paul,

On Sep 21, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
>> (or even if there is a need for interoperability)
> i don't think it makes sense to question, inside the IETF, whether a vendor-independent interoperable standard is desirable.

Who said anything about desirability?

The reason for my parenthetical was that in at least one implementation, the existence of the ‘alias mechanism for zone apex’ is never externally visible, so the question of whether or not that implementation is interoperable would be moot.

Regards,
-drc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email