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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sat, 08 April 2017 22:32 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 3B6D61205F0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 15:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 NDYNIjRl75Pa for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 15:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::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 A5912127867 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 15:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3w0rmJ3K4pzDHG; Sun, 9 Apr 2017 00:32:16 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1491690736; bh=hZKk9XyuIidrpLWBFfAm+bK5hyxXmekbFYGyVd2UpI8=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=J0Q3qJxhacK3TEGeL/ocBEbn52BWUC3MJ49NfH2HaSO7KKnSlSn9FmzVkfNld7ssf zOBRDZe1JJVxenZgDwgXGDnRHaAlXBfTI7m+NtiSEYL2KWR41+SqAI7tmIcr1FE4t1 F2AgTdVav9t6qA2V+SCNKS5fms0oXsmrChlcZzgQ=
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 kwngWdS4G6Dk; Sun, 9 Apr 2017 00:32:14 +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; Sun, 9 Apr 2017 00:32:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0F70069D772; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 18:32:12 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 0F70069D772
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F025043FE06D; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 18:32:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 18:32:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
cc: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20170407224716.GB33435@isc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1704081826570.9031@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <20170407181139.GB66383@isc.org> <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1704071658030.20015@bofh.nohats.ca> <20170407224716.GB33435@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/KKhnBKskxF0-xlNkTSWGSyQ-ZDo>
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: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 22:32:24 -0000

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