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

["Peter van Dijk" <[e-mail]>]

On 14 Apr 2017, at 22:03, John Levine wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]> you 
> write:
>>> Wouldn't it be safer to put the ANAME in the additional section?
>>
>> My thinking was that given that DNAME got away with being in ANSWER, 
>> so
>> could we.
>
> Seems to me that it belongs in the answer section, since for 
> aname-aware
> reasolvers the aname is the answer.
>
>>> Do we care about SSHFP?
>>
>> I understand the question but I’m uncomfortable extending ANAME 
>> beyond
>> address types. I will put it on the list of things that need more 
>> thought.
>
> Type bitmaps like the ones in NSEC wouldn't be hard to implement.  Add
> some sanity rules saying that type bits for DNSSEC types and the like
> are ignored, and it's an error to include any types also present at
> the same name.

Type bitmaps would preclude simple implementations that use getaddrinfo 
to do their business. As much as I think the idea may have merit, I feel 
this draft should stay close to the long list of existing ALIAS/ANAME 
implementations if it wants any chance to succeed.

If after that (perhaps after some operational experience with ANAME!) 
you want to draft up a more generic forwarding mechanism, I will happily 
help you write it all down.

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/