Re: [DNSOP] new ANAME draft: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname-00.txt

"Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> Thu, 13 April 2017 08:46 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.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 45AB2129502 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 H4JOd7MHJ7CB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shannon.7bits.nl (shannon.7bits.nl [89.188.0.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D704128DE7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.137.1] (unknown [82.168.30.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: peter) by shannon.7bits.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE6C2C5C4B; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:46:24 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:46:23 +0200
Message-ID: <05429B5D-904B-4913-9843-654C917DEA27@powerdns.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1704111652250.4393@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <20170407181139.GB66383@isc.org> <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1704071658030.20015@bofh.nohats.ca> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1704111652250.4393@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wfSc15ZjF8rkV1K7OJqohOrstpE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] new ANAME draft: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 08:46:34 -0000

On 11 Apr 2017, at 17:54, Tony Finch wrote:

>    When an ANAME record is present at a DNS node and a query is 
> received
>    by an authoritative server for type A or AAAA, the authoritative
>    server returns the ANAME RR in the answer section.
>
> Wouldn't it be safer to put the ANAME in the additional section?

My thinking was that given that DNAME got away with being in ANSWER, so 
could we.

> Do we care about SSHFP?

I understand the question but I’m uncomfortable extending ANAME beyond 
address types. I will put it on the list of things that need more 
thought.

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/