Re: [DNSOP] Fundamental ANAME problems

Ray Bellis <> Sun, 04 November 2018 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A67E130DD5 for <>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 01:01:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fibSv_Lx1qXk for <>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 01:01:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56970130E07 for <>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 01:01:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]:51073) by ([]:465) with esmtpsa ( (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1gJEHo-000748-Mo (Exim 4.72) for (return-path <>); Sun, 04 Nov 2018 09:01:37 +0000
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Ray Bellis <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2018 16:01:34 +0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fundamental ANAME problems
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2018 09:01:42 -0000

On 04/11/2018 15:05, Paul Vixie wrote:

> as evidenced by RFC 8484, the web community seems to regret basing
> their work on the Internet System, and is now moving independently.
> this may mean that offering them something like "HTTP RR" which can't
> work better than SRV or URI already works, because they speciously
> refuse to embrace these working technologies, will buy you nothing.

Members of both communities had what I felt was a very productive side
meeting during the Montreal IETF, at which I also believe there was an
acceptance that both "sides" need to come together for a mutually
agreeable solution.

I don't think that either SRV or URI are usable for the primary use
case, i.e. allowing a domain owner to put a record at the apex of
their zone that points at the hostname of the web provider they want to
use.   I personally don't think that ANAME is a good solution either.

Hence my draft which I hope is a move towards that middle ground that we
can all work with.  I have already had positive feedback from some HTTP 
people, but antagonising them won't help.