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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Sun, 17 November 2019 04:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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 32388120820 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 20:35:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=kJX7tNLt; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=GAdsMLl3
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 rrBj5REBnPAT for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 20:35:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 227B8120086 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 20:35:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0FEDBCE08 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 04:35:05 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1573965305; bh=2ylWXzSAeZSmrgXaI+Cz8Rt/7qSs6ANk9NC+A+kVQWA=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=kJX7tNLt/4szjXHwr+rfytJa/+B0iP6b+98FWJu8w0Ll96qqqzAceNoakiav9j+fG Z6jZy1b60zACbCmM/A11oI+hzXGDz673/onf4WxHyBAVLdd3Sl4HfC/UU9uvFm4LYf HTlRWzcA59SaumG87ppIgU5WVx4On2m5kccqyKT0=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ZWUnRhzEnOC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 04:35:04 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 23:35:01 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1573965304; bh=2ylWXzSAeZSmrgXaI+Cz8Rt/7qSs6ANk9NC+A+kVQWA=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=GAdsMLl3KCngQv5l15wdyswPzsHnQAaM+fbIRlkayShhZTYN0Zt4xRFpmEIMfX/tS dC70JByvT8ClSkOmHL7WT7i8fiCb1XcsYOflYDrDuJPT8WSCzvclnCJK1qGMc8tTIT Oa+yDGDDmqOANjn4fMXCqDWZNIbRxSdFOcvb3FuU=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20191117043500.g2p3dulga7ocyuf3@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <6BB18D2F-4701-41CF-9B50-9EE8541ED688@dukhovni.org> <20191116144152.0AB3DF61257@ary.iecc.com> <20191117043349.lswhmnhb2d57hez5@mx4.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191117043349.lswhmnhb2d57hez5@mx4.yitter.info>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/l14EbuflFoWB_JAk488RjAV1eGA>
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: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 04:35:07 -0000

Apologies, all, that was supposed to go off-list.  I have an employer
(ISOC), not speaking for it, &c &c.

A

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:33:50PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 10:41:51PM +0800, John Levine wrote:
> > Remember that it's invalid for an NS or MX to point to a CNAME so I assume
> > it's equally invalid for them to point to a DNAME.
>  
> They couldn't point to a DNAME, but they could point to a target that
> would resolve through a DNAME-using resolution.  To my knowledge there
> is no explicit prohibition, but if you asked in the right way (such as
> without DO set) you'd get a CNAME synthesized, which would mean that
> the thing would break sometimes and not other times.  Seems even less
> good for that reason.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com