IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 27 February 2020 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 ED8513A0BBD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 08:03:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 wDGB1BSvm_FD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 08:03:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 002CC3A0BB3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 08:03:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:57122) by ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.138]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1j7Ld0-000v7n-le (Exim 4.92.3) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 27 Feb 2020 16:03:10 +0000
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 16:03:10 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org>
cc: Lanlan Pan <abbypan@gmail.com>, "Andrew M. Hettinger" <AHettinger@prominic.net>, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKC-DJg46RraMuhXpPDXwM6WD65bAO7PFTA0wai1XdSEB6ZR-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2002271540270.12879@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <b34f1b0d-fa65-23d4-1b2b-761b965a2aae@knipp.de> <CAG8jCEzO7zrfL5G5CzdJ=c5wipJgqqHfyeA-a3-QjquoyPYgvg@mail.gmail.com> <3ead518d-f166-1c36-c3e9-18aeb355d160@pletterpet.nl> <20200220221517.GA16177@isc.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2002222349530.27562@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAH1iCiq+rOxs9c8zoJhAWbB6-0SP_WC5onF-DrbekwX=8iR49Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA+nkc8Coe8D1ECfrRwRUnzJ3azyJfXXUq3HMy63AL-4SOvmaaw@mail.gmail.com> <OF4062C1E9.B42128F1-ON86258519.006893C9-86258519.00690F29@prominic.net> <f5f17c26-e673-119e-e7aa-bc88f8ef46a3@nic.cz> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2002261657540.27562@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CANLjSvWsy1Eeh+eBqe9x6LDaLnwZBvdTuQH-LKJNT88uO0p7Cw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJg46RraMuhXpPDXwM6WD65bAO7PFTA0wai1XdSEB6ZR-A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/xQfY4POdGbQJG7G3baGqquVoYEM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 27 Feb 2020 16:03:20 -0000

Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org> wrote:

> I don't follow how this works for the non-trivial static case.
> You have two authoritative parties, one for the authoritative zone
> and one authoritative for the ANAME target.
> Both are operated by different entities.
>
> The logic and policy for the ANAME target (involving geo-ip, GSLB, etc)
> is often highly dynamic and proprietary.  How does this get conveyed
> from the authorities for the ANAME target to the authorities for the zone
> containing the ANAME?  This is where we seem to get stuck.

I imagine a boiled-dry draft would leave this unspecified, allowing
implementations to be as lazy or eager as they want. I think this
enthusiasm to accurately reproduce all the crazy DNS tricks is doomed to
failure, and not actually necessary. If a domain owner really truly wants
to spread their domain with Brand X secret sauce they can get Brand X to
host it, and if they can live with a cheap 3rd party ANAME knock-off then
that can be done much more simply.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Fisher, German Bight: Cyclonic mainly southwesterly, becoming westerly, 4 to
6. Slight or moderate becoming moderate or rough. Wintry showers. Good,
occasionally poor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email