IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] RFC 8482 (the ANY -> HINFO hack) and DNAME

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Thu, 14 November 2019 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
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 17DCA120143 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:31:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 tj5P0P5_KmHh for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:31:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from straasha.imrryr.org (straasha.imrryr.org [100.2.39.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47D8E120121 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:31:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.200.2.180] (sdzac10-108-1-nat.nje.twosigma.com [8.2.105.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by straasha.imrryr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 317C532D2CD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:31:43 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
In-Reply-To: <a8e99b8e-101e-7516-8af6-f8c1ffe436b8@time-travellers.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:31:42 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-Id: <EACF8D37-9A02-4B50-AFD1-9A3F8DA9A32B@dukhovni.org>
References: <a8e99b8e-101e-7516-8af6-f8c1ffe436b8@time-travellers.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/dLjEBwDY1CSJ5ihQ0FIuVW70zCY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] RFC 8482 (the ANY -> HINFO hack) and DNAME
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 19:31:52 -0000

> On Nov 14, 2019, at 9:40 AM, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:
> 
> We have chosen to perform CNAME synthesis for ANY queries that match a DNAME subtree, based on the logic that if CNAME is special when added by hand then it is probably also special when synthesized.
> 
> I'm interested in what the DNSOP group thinks the correct behavior is, and also if it makes sense to update RFC 8482 to clarify the expected behavior for DNAME.

With a signed zone, you have no choice but to provide the DNAME,
the closest encloser is the DNAME owner which has "DNAME" in its
type bitmask.

Thus the correct response is:

	example.net. IN DNAME example.org.
	example.net. IN RRSIG DNAME ...
	sub.example.net. IN CNAME sub.example.org. ; synthesized

This can be the entire response with NOERROR as the RCODE.
For a recursive resolver can chase the CNAME as appropriate.

-- 
-- 
	Viktor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email