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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 10 April 2017 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 8D3BD129533 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, 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 fCz1OzjtC_9h for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8A761294F6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 37779 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2017 15:10:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 10 Apr 2017 15:10:29 -0000
Date: 10 Apr 2017 15:10:07 -0000
Message-ID: <20170410151007.65659.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: ray@bellis.me.uk
In-Reply-To: <44ae341f-0424-14c7-2834-656991d402ac@bellis.me.uk>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/cQq4bXAMZrNxCK10ydqyPiG1N5k>
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 15:10:38 -0000

In article <44ae341f-0424-14c7-2834-656991d402ac@bellis.me.uk> you write:
>> 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.

True, but the most common broken CNAME I see is something like this:

example.com MX 0 mail.example.com
example.com CNAME www.example.com

www.example.com A 1.2.3.4

I agree that if we go ahead with this document, a paragraph pointing
to the ways that CNAMEs don't solve the problem would be helpful.

R's,
John