Re: [DNSOP] ANAME in answer or additional section [issue #62]

[Bob Harold <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:32 AM Matthijs Mekking <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> All,
>
>
> While working on the next version of the ANAME draft, one additional
> question came up: When querying for A or AAAA, we want to include the
> ANAME in the response as a signal to anticipate aliasing.  Should we
> include the ANAME record in the answer section or the additional section?
>
> The main argument for putting it in the additional section is that given
> the experience with DNAME, putting the ANAME in the answer section there
> is a risk of interop problems (because there is an unexpected record in
> the answer section).
>
> The main argument for putting it in the answer section is that putting
> it in the additional section implies a lower trust level, and that the
> record is optional and can be removed when minimizing responses.
>
> Does the working group have any thoughts on this?
>
> Issue is tracked here: https://github.com/each/draft-aname/issues/62
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Matthijs
>

If the camel was not already overloaded, then a cautious approach might be
to put it in the additional section, *unless* there was a capability signal
in the request that indicated that the requester would understand ANAME, or
at least not have a problem if it were in the answer section.   I am
guessing that the capability signal would be some EDNS option, or perhaps
an EDNS version.  Is that reasonable?

-- 
Bob Harold