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

Evan Hunt <> Mon, 03 April 2017 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36CB1293FC for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NSqiZ26F7M_5 for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64A44128B44 for <>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BAB03493AC; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 22:25:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10292) id 1F75B216C1C; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 22:25:31 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 22:25:31 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <>
To: Paul Wouters <>
Cc: Dan York <>, "" <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <20170330230806.6273.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New draft for ALIAS/ANAME type
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 22:25:34 -0000

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 03:48:49PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> As Evan said, there should not be any code in an authoritative server
> that requires it to do recursive validation.

I said what now?  Had I recently had dental surgery?  I don't remember

If you mean the comment I made on the ANAME thread, I was just saying
that it's possible to implement CNAME flattening without a built-in
resolver; several implementations already do.

(I do believe an authoritative server should be *able* to operate without
built-in recursive code, and enabling such operation is on my list of
things to get around to someday in BIND: if auth servers could be
configured to use external resolvers, then security bugs affecting
only the recursive code wouldn't be any risk to them. But I definitely
wouldn't phrase that as "there should not be any code".)

Evan Hunt --
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.