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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 11 April 2017 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 C75B412EBB3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 11:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 7qdFtrLTXiCC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 11:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (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 8B4D512EB86 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 11:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3w2Zxt60T1zD36; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 20:16:34 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1491934594; bh=Wh64X87RnjDEtVHmJCixwPRhw+SP+bjMTiCnjo2UwUw=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=HQQNR8P23kzbscM70FF7ixZ7dLdHgW9T7gkCQMCCrFG09x/J1M9ibRtm7O8Mr34CN xchQ/ZSTkLmyI8EdXndDFyKns0Bu8jV+mKEGBsJ23AccPwxnIoZvc6SqAFevoWSF/V sanGI9Mv9Ana7+sV/+FolICfC3xnjRBCmd90AKg0=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 96_FDTC81Ko3; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 20:16:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 20:16:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 31C1D418516; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:16:33 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 31C1D418516
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A9FE40D3585; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:16:33 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:16:33 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1704111641290.4393@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1704111147390.8670@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <20170407181139.GB66383@isc.org> <cc3bbc7a-3f48-2f7f-a3d9-3f752874fc00@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1704111641290.4393@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20.999 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/iVVEVeXiZ6MZ9CzSiGWD22_l5pA>
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: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 18:17:08 -0000

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Tony Finch wrote:

> ANAME
> records are not just for zone apexes. There are lots of other cases where
> address records need a different alias target from MX records, or NAPTR
> records, etc.

Can you give me an example of deploying ANAME outside the zone APEX that
is not solved by allowing a CNAME to point to a CNAME (which most code I
think already allows anyway)

Paul