Re: [DNSOP] Root reasons (aka "why") - HTTP vs SRV vs ANAME vs CNAME vs URI vs NAPTR

Brian Dickson <> Fri, 09 November 2018 11:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B7EF12777C for <>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 03:05:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rG3Q2gOfDPO8 for <>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 03:05:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13CAD124D68 for <>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 03:05:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id h18so787302vsj.4 for <>; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 03:05:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vJ456122mZTbYPQH6UiXCIGYt7Gc4uEm2V9LxdyrcIA=; b=Jb8R68cMpgUOydG3G0Ah6A6Dz/XrAnDIWagAq8KY+6y/jFpSQk9ic5BK89kCfNcmpQ p54pTlJiwaIsmc6mRf2O5QpQu61vXluNvCijbFahakrez5Na8p724xDguUD/sKsDaqG2 EbDMMPkOK1wqlkOpc89ywW0XVW/kfUrbopX1u6Kni1sAEtIrl/0pUIyQ4O/54EY9iyLx WBN3t1PdMC+hZp6Fwd2eebkOUIexKMyfq72nYs3bg6mn4wUWT6I+VosLv4I6+ziOxRBS BxbSXMcg/Z1MJkMprAm5ZD8L+0X01Ktc4aJp2ihmbpbb6/dhOVcujfR2yHZS/DhlWdID abjw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vJ456122mZTbYPQH6UiXCIGYt7Gc4uEm2V9LxdyrcIA=; b=e9Brj60sziQ/j2i/M6Xyr76+ajg/NhvxscJEqR0Sv6tscPiu09sGwyidsMt/uSd3jO 4oktjXQjyxmf7IRW3Y42xewoQMKnAcz/aw25MEMhN0ZVdbEXIxkYkM6Nq1DQOULD1QF1 UVkiSMnjNqW7V+nw4aF7gjeNwR4dd2pT9K/Gb9cY7LCr2l6IzcRdkqGwL3maq6D9L6lG CIz26C11cI/0Dkog6zn4CMvsGrW3EN6PQ939cN+kbFL2xXZHBYHxvZfi7ORukpFWWjpM BMQyvWR4dWwukIQaCPUx17+W74BIPOPBvUFtQCph7qMV5cgplXQCh+p74Bc+YHXmgRWq BOIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gI1ZRIUNHJHoPmQACffv6GfvJfq4NsScaApgxfEOJ055bKRM0uW jADCwwOzZHjCWeGzoM1BHHfL5kGk4Ucn6cX07sO2dKKcCrs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5dTZrSGGpkipk5BktBUMDvu0sKDju+BwdbsiIufgB0aDa7iEW1H9H5VSSIO9fCsFMQ/wjdO+Umijm8Wm8BwBLY=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:3edc:: with SMTP id a89mr3600281vsi.136.1541761524566; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 03:05:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Brian Dickson <>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 18:05:12 +0700
Message-ID: <>
To: " WG" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000011f1057a39545d"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Root reasons (aka "why") - HTTP vs SRV vs ANAME vs CNAME vs URI vs NAPTR
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: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 11:05:28 -0000

Patrik Fältström wrote:

> Note changed subject...
> [rest of message cut from reply]

There is a major semantic difference in the NAPTR/URI RDATA and how/where
it is handled, which is at the HTTP application layer (i.e. 3xx rewriting).

This differs from the other 4 RRTYPEs, where only the A/AAAA values are
sought by the client (i.e. at the transport layer).

It boils down to what is in the browser bar/certificate, and which meaning
of "canonical" is desired (maybe "correct" isn't the right term in this

Given that this is something that we're trying to use to replace CNAME, the
smallest degree of semantic change is probably likely to be the least

IMHO, those two are pretty much out of scope, at least for this discussion.
(I don't see a problem advocating for their use, but those are existing
types, and nothing stops anyone from using them.)

No offense intended.