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

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Evan Hunt wrote:

> The hope here is that, in the long run, ANAME resolution would be the job
> of the resolver, which in in a position to get the best answer for its
> clients, given geolocation and topology considerations.
>
> Expansion of ANAME on the authoritative end is a workaround for the
> fact that we can't go back in time and put ANAME support into all
> the resolvers.
>
>> But really, what it comes down to for me is that if you are adding logic
>> to the AUTH nameservers to synthesize ANAME into A/AAAA records, why bother
>> ever sending ANAME over the wire? Just let clients send A/AAAA and never
>> ask for ANAME.
>
> Resolvers don't ask for ANAME. They ask for A/AAAA, and get an A/AAAA
> answer, along with an ANAME record so they can go directly to the source
> and get a better answer if they support that.

If these are the premises for ANAME, and its special handling, wouldn't
it be better to generalise asking for multiple records (eg A + AAAA
+ ANAME) where ANAME has no special handling on its own? And then do the
generealised multi-query-at-once using one of the previously suggested
proposals?

I thought there were some recent suggested drafts, which I cannot seem
to find now, but an old one on this is draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions.

Then people who want to ask (A + AAAA + TLSA) or (A+AAAA+SSHFP) or
(A+AAAA+IPSECKEY) could use the same mechanism. And ANAME would just be
a regular DNS record without any abnormal processing.

Paul