Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CNAME at apex

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Fri, 22 June 2018 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.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 0DCA5130EF0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 13:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.441
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 5vBOJQuc6woz for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 13:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-f51.google.com (mail-lf0-f51.google.com [209.85.215.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E2AC130EEB for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 13:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-f51.google.com with SMTP id a13-v6so9989845lfk.12 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 13:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oGG1gv+SVbVZFQXPPKvvpeB/AkJyRMeGueznf0RqAA8=; b=WwmQ3RvUMlwEs3KNtDLP5dDGNCfwowGb64OzjfSmyE3wCQQGaH1JGDlhXnLf4aw6Cz kUdt0vf9eNtlX6CD71FridxFhqSQVNyw7YV7a83bAWxOpS0FfhMKv9an1C6LaKYkBxZr lU5skp9JDyboB9Qo1asOPjGefT9wUayNGr5suO9z3MlpJxFFR5FRaGC4fmTenhnTuK7C 8492fl3lUHv9Ozwqe4V+JcLnbkieWwWdzYZvFwmV3X/UexplFOuwVl5IGW0NQcEkcADe N2mqSQ4CIF3AotUsfG9saHm3ykHE9DzvFlg2yj/PQjpENzDrpA9pZFYco5gPN6A8kjXH 0N7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E095PCo0Pmr37fYreC4gDqc22+FK0Dr+gWAxtykDw1HNes25L1g 0nbJhVTIwZOyBY1euUOlfLHNiJB+uDxCZgBmF//iQCBr
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIkDw60hvtq41TuV6Yz+dijy26ZzWkxPsYi23MQ8XkSelIurwGYbdj79xoDmMvvxYQeYXT3aMcKaVf3OcmsoOU=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:8c11:: with SMTP id o17-v6mr203523lfd.15.1529700558621; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 13:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJhMdTO2kj+nUqESg3ew=wwZuB9OzkJE6pST=mae7pHiEk4-Qw@mail.gmail.com> <20180619190213.B76962846E19@ary.qy> <20180622182752.GA83312@isc.org> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1806221517590.29829@ary.qy> <5B2D5573.4090401@redbarn.org>
In-Reply-To: <5B2D5573.4090401@redbarn.org>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 13:49:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqfXHs5WUb1B03GVwBt-Gh46UtRuJeW-2Kf6buNgJ4eieQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Cc: johnl@taugh.com, Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ujF0Syd7YDg-g6DjQW5tcYWlPOc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CNAME at apex
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 20:49:22 -0000

At Fri, 22 Jun 2018 16:00:51 -0400,
Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>; wrote:

> >> Minor clarification here: ANAME doesn't require the authoritative server
> >> itself to do recursion; it requires it to have access to a reursive
> >> server.
> >
> > I suppose, but that seems to me a distinction without a difference.
> > Either way we end up importing all of the failure modes of a recursive
> > server into an authoritative one.
>
> +1. authority servers cannot be coerce-able into doing work, whether
> it's computation, memory allocation, or external transactions like RDNS.

Also +1.  I've always thought there's no point in standardizing
ANAME-kind of thing unless its ultimate goal includes the
resolver-side support.  Of course it would take very long time and may
even turn out to be unsuccessful, but if we give up with the idea from
the beginning by stating 'not required, I wouldn't be able to support
the work.  So to me, this is not minor but quite critical.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya