Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CNAME at apex
Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Sat, 23 June 2018 21:04 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
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 55CDE130F1C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 14:04:22 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 UjrO_pWfxSZP for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 14:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mournblade.imrryr.org (mournblade.imrryr.org [108.5.242.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00D5D130EFD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 14:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mournblade.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1034) id C68857A330A; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 21:04:17 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 21:04:17 +0000
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180623210416.GA12346@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Reply-To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <b73f3dc7-b378-d5d8-c7a2-42bc4326fbae@nic.cz> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806191428250.916@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAJhMdTO2kj+nUqESg3ew=wwZuB9OzkJE6pST=mae7pHiEk4-Qw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAJhMdTO2kj+nUqESg3ew=wwZuB9OzkJE6pST=mae7pHiEk4-Qw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wd8vsnJSZmhhB4qVQqAFQzX0jQU>
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: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 21:04:23 -0000
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 07:59:34AM -0700, Joe Abley wrote: > > Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> wrote: > >> > >> Given that resolver side somehow works already ... > >> could we standardize this obvious violation of RFC 1035? > > > > The feature I would like is CNAME and other data (typically CNAME + MX + > > TXT), because I have a lot of deeply hierarchial subdomains in my main > > zone. CNAME at apex does not need to be (and I think should not be treated > > as) a special case. I concur that allowing some form of redirection alongside other records is a valuable generalization that seems more natural than ANAME kludges on the authoritative server. > However, it sounds a bit like what is being proposed in this thread > (generally, not in your specific message) is for CNAME to be treated > on authority servers like a wildcard RRTYPE for a particular owner > name. The response behaviour if a CNAME is present at the owner name > matching the QTYPE but there is no corresponding RRTYPE in the zone is > to return a NOERROR/CNAME response instead of a NODATA response. Yes, precisely, a default redirection answer when it would otherwise have been NODATA. If the RRtype in question is "XNAME" for some value of "XNAME", then with: example.com. IN SOA ns1.example.com. root.example.com. ... example.com. IN NS ns1.example.com. example.com. IN MX 0 smtp.example.com. example.com. IN NSEC ... SOA NS MX FOONAME NSEC RRSIG example.com. IN XNAME www.provider.net. ; example.com. IN RRSIG SOA ... example.com. IN RRSIG NS ... example.com. IN RRSIG MX ... example.com. IN RRSIG FOONAME ... example.com. IN RRSIG NSEC ... You get the SOA/NS/MX/NSEC/XNAME records when asking for one of those, but otherwise you get the XNAME record along with the NSEC bitmap proving the non-existence of the requested type. > For recursive servers the change that is required is to keep track of > what QTYPEs triggered particular CNAMEs in the cache so that new-QTYPE > cache misses trigger an upstream query. Yes, but if they have the NSEC bitmap, they can follow the XNAME without asking again. > All of this needs to be extended along the edns-client-subnet axis. I am not convinced that ends-client-subnet should be in scope here. Should there really be a different list of RRtypes per client subnet? Or just variation in the payload of the same set of RRsets. It would be far simpler to say that NODATA/NXDomain and the type bitmap should be global across all client subnets. All you get per client subnet is payload variation per RRset. > All of the corner cases relating to existing CNAME behaviour, both > standardised and not, on recursive servers, stub resolvers and > authority servers needs to be specified. Yes. > This sounds like a lot of work and likely to cause camel indigestion. Yes, but IMHO cleaner than ANAME, and solves a more general problem. > However assuming the initial thesis was correct and there is demand > for this functionality (seems right to me) using a new RRTYPE for this > still sounds easier than changing the semantics of CNAME. This is where a more detailed pros/cons analysis is needed. The main advantage of sticking with (modified) CNAMEs is that they will already be understood by applications. It is unclear to me how XNAME works. We're trying to meet application needs, and if this can be made to work by updating CNAME to allow co-existence with other records (not just at the zone apex, but more generally), then that would be a much better fit with existing applications. > Perhaps the new RRTYPE could include an encoding of explicit types > that do exist to make life easier for resolvers. That's already handled by NSEC/NSEC3. > Perhaps we could call the RRTYPE "*" instead of ENAME or FNAME to > avoid encouraging future GNAME and HNAME proposals :-) If it is not CNAME, then the WG will have to bikeshed a name, but "*" I think invites trouble, various interfaces that expect RRtype names to look like an alphanumeric identifier would choke on "*". -- Viktor.
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] faux BNAME, was abandoning ANAME and … John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Jan Včelák
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Paul Ebersman
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Ondřej Surý
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Matthew Pounsett
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Colm MacCárthaigh
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Anthony Eden
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Erik Nygren
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Jared Mauch
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Lanlan Pan
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… tjw ietf
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Colm MacCárthaigh
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Tony Finch
- [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CNAME … Petr Špaček
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Shumon Huque
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… 神明達哉
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Shumon Huque
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Lanlan Pan
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [DNSOP] Creating a query/record for A and AAAA Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Creating a query/record for A and AAAA Michael Sheldon
- Re: [DNSOP] Creating a query/record for A and AAAA Paul Vixie
- [DNSOP] Creating a query/record for A and AAAA Michael Sheldon
- Re: [DNSOP] Creating a query/record for A and AAAA Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Creating a query/record for A and AAAA Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Creating a query/record for A and AAAA Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] Creating a query/record for A and AAAA Ondřej Surý
- Re: [DNSOP] Creating a query/record for A and AAAA Jared Mauch
- Re: [DNSOP] Creating a query/record for A and AAAA Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Creating a query/record for A and AAAA Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] Creating a query/record for A and AAAA Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] Creating a query/record for A and AAAA Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Matthijs Mekking
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Dan York
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Petr Špaček
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Evan Hunt
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… JW
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Petr Špaček
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Petr Špaček
- Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CN… Mukund Sivaraman