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

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Mon, 10 April 2017 10:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 0DEB5120724 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 03:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Wh7dQxSGVyJr for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 03:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD5EB12441E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 03:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [46.227.151.81] (port=52154 helo=rays-mbp.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1cxWx0-0000vR-DQ (Exim 4.72) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:53:38 +0100
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <20170407181139.GB66383@isc.org> <cc3bbc7a-3f48-2f7f-a3d9-3f752874fc00@redhat.com> <86FE867E-E1BE-4427-9FB2-D148B3F9C8C2@powerdns.com> <8d63caf5-f2ce-0d0a-e431-42e4b704ab14@bellis.me.uk>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <44ae341f-0424-14c7-2834-656991d402ac@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:53:39 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8d63caf5-f2ce-0d0a-e431-42e4b704ab14@bellis.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/c3QE3ESXHqC_PsqZ56aE__eGKks>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] new ANAME draft: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname-00.txt
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, 10 Apr 2017 10:53:42 -0000


On 10/04/2017 11:39, I wrote:

> Many TLD registries simply don't permit CNAMEs instead of delegations
> for their customer domains.
> 
> The only one I've heard of that does is .de

My real point being that the parent / child relationship can have policy
rules in place that prevent things that are technically completely possible.

Ray