Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-hunt-dnsop-aname

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 11 May 2017 21:28 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 0786E1294E6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 May 2017 14:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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 Ki7N7Exla26d for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 May 2017 14:28:39 -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 37270129C2A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 May 2017 14:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3wP5f30GSlz3C6; Thu, 11 May 2017 23:22:03 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1494537723; bh=QoCOPOR4TTQjTiq1uqvYSb11JXifUmsfkjk3FDDV3Kw=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=GLTdKJQGIlxxfpsr8cxeS/hvPYPRnJmAid0MNgCpfpx2CSJGgMoX23hokZ+2Z2FBM dmqy0pkBccWPE/Uno/sClXGNmNxg2Xgz4Q8zbR1i/HFTSOM9x7+jnhtoHSCHgKUCAh Ey2zhQ0FSScNxzWo0zqN2rOKhTnpGeFIuZq6RTvM=
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 BYLHYdWN42xX; Thu, 11 May 2017 23:22:00 +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, 11 May 2017 23:21:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6896641C1FC; Thu, 11 May 2017 17:21:58 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 6896641C1FC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 522274129B74; Thu, 11 May 2017 17:21:58 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 17:21:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+HxXBHhCupyVyT9i9Kfwm7o_M10VDnMnST6SDobOOGc3g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1705111713220.20099@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CADyWQ+HxXBHhCupyVyT9i9Kfwm7o_M10VDnMnST6SDobOOGc3g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20.999 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/SU7m7KxRcrBVGj3RKQNREQcR5MU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-hunt-dnsop-aname
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, 11 May 2017 21:28:41 -0000

On Thu, 11 May 2017, tjw ietf wrote:

> This starts a Call for Adoption for: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname
> 
> The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hunt-dnsop-aname/
> 
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by DNSOP, and comments to the list,
> clearly stating your view.

I am against adopting this document. It proposes to create a new RRTPYE
that has specialised processing and bundles two problem solutions into
one niche solution that has offline DNSSEC signing issues.

I think it is better to solve the problem in two dinstict parts:

1) Create an ANAME record that instructs where an AUTH server can get updated data
    regarding its A/AAAA records. This can be signed without any problem.

2) Create an EDNS0 option allowing arbitrary query types to be bundled.
    This will allow asking for A+AAAA+ANAME, resulting in getting the
    latest known records plus a reference where to get updates in one query.

There were already drafts out there that address 2)

Also, solving 2) allows bund;ing to be used for other record types as
well (that don't use _prefixes).

Paul