Re: [DNSOP] new ANAME draft: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname-00.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 20 April 2017 20:55 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 971241316BA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:55:12 -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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 NH9XyIVY2f7B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:55:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 C694E1316B3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3w8B2Y1QJqz30Z; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:55:01 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1492721701; bh=lpDTeXXXHaCPokREzHWDrMoXk7xipBL6gaJ2mhGaHHQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ZWgNPWv5Zqj8+Lj9FMD6xjwr/KSu5PhswInXUa2bUe4uXh3+VBEX5eYDSSiXCg2U3 tl6MiSSx7NTm0P4bys8MsJyeYhrIeb9yJSlwdIVAJWXSWweQJ68IhJCEZ5J4ikqNDE OeQXiu+N2ZDbmG6G8InVxBuv3WsG7Nba2I4VObes=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wy51o3yuPdSo; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:54:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:54:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EFBFC418565; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:54:55 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca EFBFC418565
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81D740BDBCE; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:54:55 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:54:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170420063648.GA73884@isc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1704201650180.14463@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <20170414200316.86192.qmail@ary.lan> <CA3AE8E2-A54F-4F9D-A6F3-D754A6829B75@powerdns.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1704191436580.15622@bofh.nohats.ca> <20170420063648.GA73884@isc.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20.999 (LRH 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/IQqWnQWo908KpN9pBbNp4GzV4ZM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] new ANAME draft: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname-00.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: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 20:55:13 -0000

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Evan Hunt wrote:

> But, because there are always going to be legacy servers, the client would
> then need to send an ANAME query, and when it got no answer, send another
> query for A and AAAA.
>
> If clients were willing to do that, then they'd have been willing to use
> SRV, and we'd have standardized on that long since.  Which would've been
> fine, but browser vendors have had years to do it, and they never have.

If that is your use case, I also see no point in ANAME being used by
resolvers, and you should just create the new XFR type for this, so that
AUTH servers can update their A/AAAA records without needing any
recursive DNS protocol changes. Because what you seem to want is a
method for updating some information between two AUTH servers.

> Apparently, what they want is to send address queries and get redirected
> answers. And if we can't make them do the smart thing, at least we can
> give them an interoperable and standards-compliant way to do the dumb
> thing.

Maybe if A and SRV could be returned in the same query they would, so
that leads back to generic support for multi-type queries (with I guess
_location support) being a better generic solution to the problem
compared to this ANAME draft that builds a validating recursive resolver
into any authoritative server.

Paul