Re: [DNSOP] ANAME TTL vs GCD
Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 30 October 2018 13:26 UTC
Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 B3843130DE8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 06:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 EjtDBCfLhF0D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 06:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.130]) (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 A515C130E1C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 06:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:46300) by ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.136]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1gHU2T-000pg7-eA (Exim 4.91) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:26:33 +0000
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:26:32 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no>
cc: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <87lg6fwssl.fsf@miraculix.mork.no>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1810301324220.24450@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1810301108050.24450@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <87lg6fwssl.fsf@miraculix.mork.no>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="1870870841-814129832-1540905993=:24450"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/mDyM0HGm1OQirC4yu15Foa-AJVI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] ANAME TTL vs GCD
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, 30 Oct 2018 13:26:39 -0000
Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no> wrote: > > Require DNSSEC for ANAME support That isn't going to be feasible, I'm afraid, because the tricky TTLs are down the ANAME+CNAME chain, so they aren't under the control of the ANAME owner. And many of the use cases for ANAME involve pointing it at targets that don't do DNSSEC. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Faeroes, Southeast Iceland: Cyclonic, mainly southeasterly, 6 to gale 8. Rough or very rough. Rain or showers. Good, occasionally poor.
- [DNSOP] ANAME TTL vs GCD Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] ANAME TTL vs GCD Bjørn Mork
- Re: [DNSOP] ANAME TTL vs GCD Matthijs Mekking
- Re: [DNSOP] ANAME TTL vs GCD Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] ANAME TTL vs GCD Tony Finch