IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Minimum viable ANAME

Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat@nic.cz> Tue, 26 March 2019 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <vladimir.cunat@nic.cz>
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 EFC9D1205E7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 09:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 QnlNLAkV3qSY for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 09:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06ECE1205FC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 09:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:4e0f:6eff:fe44:5c48] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:4e0f:6eff:fe44:5c48]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E070633FD; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 17:35:21 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1553618121; bh=ZyS5vgpEcqCW1tSyS+R/gvNVoLcH9X5T4F3P84rT2TA=; h=To:From:Date; b=RI7/f0u6jjFCcPxRreEt7dIJtdP7NKFOSRV9a5JQJjigmH4Fax0HquU8nQDEIupcZ OsNTWXEt3C03vTuLo3RRuyme9Tn19c/rrF5bIKtkD+UcE9sJTq2oRRwi1T2H91l/9d eg9p8na74rSa8AdMk3ADRNgsbBahMAw5Ey7YpPkQ=
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
References: <20180919201401.8E0C220051382A@ary.qy> <08C8A740-D09B-4577-AF2A-79225EDB526B@dotat.at> <20180920061343.GA754@jurassic> <E944887D-51ED-41A0-AC5A-3076743620D8@isoc.org> <acef1f69-8e4f-52cc-dca5-3ada9446e0ee@bellis.me.uk> <CABrJZ5HmCoSsGe2L-JkAsPywhcxyyVkvMmXCvQyJMjWHnMeT_w@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903261521290.13313@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <104ec4ea-296f-1657-5633-f6c1f2684274@pletterpet.nl> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903261540330.13313@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
From: Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat@nic.cz>
Message-ID: <ec8e6848-c962-56b4-50d5-a7bd4b6d48e6@nic.cz>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 17:35:19 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903261540330.13313@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C9DE10828E42D3A8C7ACE758"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/dO2JmaHsEYIRwEAbyTDxezVRxh8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Minimum viable ANAME
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: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 16:35:39 -0000

On 3/26/19 5:10 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> I haven't seen any objections to support for ANAME in recursive servers
> so I'm surprised you think that is problematic enough to be removed.

I'm not convinced that the resolver parts will be important, regardless 
of what exact mechanism will be chosen.  My reasoning is that you can't 
rely on any changes there being widely deployed soon, and there might 
not be enough incentive to implement and deploy.  On the authoritative 
side, on the other hand, it's enough to just get support on all servers 
*you* use, and the incentives seem much stronger, too.

--Vladimir

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status