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

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Fri, 15 November 2019 17:36 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 937F5120219 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 09:36:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ptaSxxsJtUoP for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 09:36:15 -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 29B8A120058 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 09:36:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.161] (unknown [192.168.1.161]) (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 09BF532DE7B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:36:13 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
In-Reply-To: <20191114185026.0CA98F52B6C@ary.qy>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:36:11 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-Id: <6BB18D2F-4701-41CF-9B50-9EE8541ED688@dukhovni.org>
References: <20191114185026.0CA98F52B6C@ary.qy>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/jCTFGslfAmhJakbjvtJnK_LPCrs>
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: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 17:36:16 -0000

> On Nov 14, 2019, at 1:50 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
> PS: I'm also coming to the conclusion that if you think DNAME solves
> your problem, and your problem isn't the arcane IPv6 rDNS renumbering
> for which it was invented, you don't understand DNAME.

As you may recall,

   http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/adrEUoWPq1EoxonkvcCJCnEkcFg

the .tw registry employs a DNAME to identify their traditional and simplified
Chinese IDN TLDs (simplified is a DNAME alias for traditional).  For example:

台湾.                   DNAME   台灣.
日曆.台湾.              CNAME   日曆.台灣.
日曆.台灣.              SOA     brit.ns.cloudflare.com. dns@cloudflare.com. ...

Or equivalently:

xn--kprw13d.		DNAME	xn--kpry57d.
xn--wgvnt.xn--kprw13d.	CNAME	xn--wgvnt.xn--kpry57d.
xn--wgvnt.xn--kpry57d.	SOA	brit.ns.cloudflare.com. dns@cloudflare.com. ...

-- 
	Viktor.