Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CNAME at apex

Mukund Sivaraman <> Mon, 17 September 2018 11:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAD99130DD6 for <>; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 04:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P1r2zu5CcXrq for <>; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 04:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2BB1271FF for <>; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 04:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jurassic (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3733532C08FD; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 11:55:53 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 17:25:50 +0530
From: Mukund Sivaraman <>
To: Petr =?utf-8?B?xaBwYcSNZWs=?= <>
Message-ID: <20180917115550.GA11502@jurassic>
References: <> <20180916095655.GA11121@jurassic> <> <20180917074327.GA13046@jurassic> <> <20180917093028.GA3413@jurassic> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CNAME at apex
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: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 11:55:59 -0000

Hi Petr

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:29:13PM +0200, Petr Špaček wrote:
> Originally I thought that current workarounds for CNAME at apex (which
> are almost everywhere) deal with it in a more deterministic way.

Do you mean the current workarounds in resolver implementations?  These
can be brought into line going forward if there's a draft of expected

I was sold when Evan presented the (basic) ANAME idea at a team meeting
at ISC and thought it was a fine idea. Now it seems that relaxing CNAME
to be a fallback would be the most painless and simple path. I
remembered reading something on dnsop@ and got to this thread. Other
ideas would create yet another chapter in the DNS book to implement
which seems excessive for little added benefit.