Re: [DNSOP] New draft for ALIAS/ANAME type

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 03 April 2017 19:49 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 1CCCC129514 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 12:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 lzKAymRe3PUE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 12:49:08 -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 11DCC12963F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 12:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3vxjN35M9MzCwZ; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 21:48:51 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1491248931; bh=eamw0N3/C3WQYUH5ElGDXazMg4ad9V3aIWxRQz6RgY4=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=hhVUc1HjdF92JVb74LoUy/YGwrSUtFM56RIpzv9PDHT1e06OD4Zpb1QBqLDtxPbVE +C10k25S8932ElUq5iUMRJjOo3c46PHzQmfENwQh3j/VcT76KOVNwpqdCjLcTqi/if uYbxUSogSMcYksfnI67Jaz88Xw7P4byaqsoGB/uA=
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 kF9A3XHi9XlC; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 21:48:50 +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; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 21:48:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9D8403943A4; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:48:49 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 9D8403943A4
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F7C400088C; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:48:49 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:48:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Dan York <york@isoc.org>
cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <3A4E2834-2BD4-4DC3-9D5A-A15B3DCDA738@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1704031546230.16478@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CA+nkc8Bwc6eQz6YPAnMLNjvHm4POLTyvsTRQC5Pn+R4iTzaB-g@mail.gmail.com> <20170330230806.6273.qmail@ary.lan> <20170330231358.GA92307@isc.org> <3A4E2834-2BD4-4DC3-9D5A-A15B3DCDA738@isoc.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20.999 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/WaBFFX5bXfmmsz6mPECLRjZeUpA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New draft for ALIAS/ANAME type
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: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:49:11 -0000

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Dan York wrote:

> I very much like the idea of this draft, given that I use multiple DNS hosting providers who all have their own unique (and proprietary) way of doing
> "CNAME flattening at the apex". I think the reality of today's user experience with domain names is that we are increasingly dropping the "www" or any
> other kind of second-level domain. So we want to talk about our sites as "example.com" ... but as the publisher we want to use CDNs, load balancers and
> other systems that need us to use a CNAME. A standardized way of doing this would be helpful.
> One comment... 

I hate it :)

As Evan said, there should not be any code in an authoritative server
that requires it to do recursive validation.

> (Incidentally, I'm working on a somewhat more ambitious ANAME draft with
> Peter van Dijk and Anthony Eden, who has kindly agreed to merge his efforts
> with ours. I expect to post it in a few days, stay tuned.)

Staying tuned :)

Paul