Re: [DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any

[Evan Hunt <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:19:27AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> I'm aware that a lot of the animosity towards ANY has come from Dan's 
> choice of using it to find records for qmail. I am not a Dan-fan 
> generally, but on this topic he has made the excellent point that the 
> query exists, and has well-defined semantics which meet the use case, so 
> it's legal to use it. I have never understood the DNS literati's 
> animosity towards that argument.

Dan's use case would not be harmed by refuse-any; qmail sends its queriers
to local resolvers, not to authority servers. It gets back whatever happens
to be cached, or the minimal answer, and in either case it'll re-query.
No harm done.

> I find it astonishing that there is this overwhelming "We must preserve 
> backwards compatibility at all costs!" sentiment on so many ridiculous 
> topics in the DNS, and yet because people hate the ANY query (and 
> particularly one software author's perceived misappropriation of it) SO 
> MUCH y'all are willing to throw backwards compatibility out the door for 
> something that it's absolutely clear will break deployed applications.

This is already deployed; it was introduced as "mimimal-any" in BIND
9.11.0 using the pick-one-RRset method, and cloudflare has been using the
HINFO method for over a year.  I haven't heard reports of anything being
broken.

-- 
Evan Hunt -- [e-mail]
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.