Re: [DNSOP] Minimum viable ANAME

Olli Vanhoja <> Tue, 26 March 2019 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B239A12068B for <>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WI_OWMUZ6-wY for <>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71B39120690 for <>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 10so9236171lfr.8 for <>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VHTBPtNT2ODVYcizOjj7ffwigVrqeez1wtVHLLHtn9o=; b=tgGMZ6m1BgXTSy9JRFGJNoxENxFlKIb+AzygHb8+DJLUkuYx25FOwUUrJ8GUD7ytdT 8LILwEsNFHx2ocyPhnAz19qCGlV8XvHzO3oPkHAEdsw1s+qW0/Vp5iSug6rSM6yW1DAL pKRvcZPy9Nv4rGnlP4wHxZ+AHaIg7xERugdBduQ3684EIclh5GNTnEA3YaR75GXjPNvX EeMqmoxRxvTCRWaQmEVrOqFmKYPj599v1o4WIsjxyUZuT4uZPyT3l0iC+XESc1N8F+Zk mvbxGe1IvJFpAM6bUMbBMrRHfDmwuc0Q4sd78jYfCUy9GfOgufSqQfQm8Y+hw3DqBu2D 6Vtw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VHTBPtNT2ODVYcizOjj7ffwigVrqeez1wtVHLLHtn9o=; b=J8pZv1lKJC20hSyWeTGn8qZJVnicu3YoKmzPeG6wCB3GGN44aVp/qu0MUKeuazTV8L EaPBjx5JPoNm0hA7knhd11g6pSJ3wY07rfw4Z2HyvFa2jjM6feEEaJY/BnKfeLX+EpFz A5FfDARoOHuP5Fn9sHbRn1iB1OzniQE16/GLi3DBz5sIrgy8t6M1K2iM00VhN+MCMhpO 0wQ/g4b4tnG54EA7JSHMA/UEy/Yf+1T01Q3iVLn5oU4USzx9g9iUAYaQRWFoN5tNmfDt J1SxSALaYs6BIEVgLwCOZNhi/viXv0BFqvWyg30ik0KKaRjdxKkZsNtV3gP0A+iz8nmA uZqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXCVJ+BSSkbwtFKUG6GJyWdpwLQpk/N9cbAnfK/Fx6w2N9FfEr3 e18ZjzjCUtZg62Vp40NPFd4n5VXqQxMkDc5TW5VrBI6D26U=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwCl7gB0IJDM9Dr430kCnpuUim+QSnSEukHWiazpXRPMhezN+Q6CyllD4ABqflIp6H2NUCNLZltm0VBu23tKwo=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:d144:: with SMTP id i65mr14537417lfg.52.1553619701743; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180919201401.8E0C220051382A@ary.qy> <> <20180920061343.GA754@jurassic> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Olli Vanhoja <>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:01:30 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: =?UTF-8?B?VmxhZGltw61yIMSMdW7DoXQ=?= <>
Cc: dnsop <>, Tony Finch <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Minimum viable ANAME
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: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 17:01:53 -0000

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 5:36 PM Vladimír Čunát <> wrote:
> I'm not convinced that the resolver parts will be important, regardless of what exact mechanism will be chosen.  My reasoning is that you can't rely on any changes there being widely deployed soon, and there might not be enough incentive to implement and deploy.  On the authoritative side, on the other hand, it's enough to just get support on all servers *you* use, and the incentives seem much stronger, too.
> --Vladimir

I think it's totally wrong to *choose* here what we think is the best
method to solve the issue. Note that ANAME/ALIAS/whatever is already
widely deployed on the authoritative side i.e. DNS providers like AWS,
PointDNS, DNSMadeEasy, Constellix, Cloudflare (on enterprise plans),
and probably many others. Surely their implementations differ from
each other and what is exactly supported varies a lot, but regardless
of that these providers and their customers are already in consensus
about the key details. Me and many others will be using those
providers no matter whether there will be an RFC or not. Zone
transfers will be hard and feature parity will be lacking but at least
it somewhat works while we keep designing the perfecting Internet that
nobody else has time to wait for.