Re: [lamps] DNS DNAME pain.

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 09 November 2017 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1AA126557 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 08:30:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 yypt_zWi06ai for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 08:30:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 35A4D1201F2 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 08:30:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 15881 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2017 16:30:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.53) by gal.iecc.com with QMQP; 9 Nov 2017 16:30:04 -0000
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 16:29:41 -0000
Message-ID: <20171109162941.3670.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: spasm@ietf.org
Cc: phill@hallambaker.com
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwgMkSq7xVhVe_tYs7t46qmB9iVs92_SM3MOMeFCqWinbA@mail.gmail.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/YYoH8ClKYFxTn49Ihy4vgd6FisY>
Subject: Re: [lamps] DNS DNAME pain.
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 16:30:08 -0000

In article <CAMm+LwgMkSq7xVhVe_tYs7t46qmB9iVs92_SM3MOMeFCqWinbA@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>reverse DNS. It is really not suited for the task it is used for (as
>we have discovered when trying to use it for forward DNS,

No argument there.

>What this means is that we can't have RRs like the following:
>
>example.net DNAME example.com
>_prefix.example.net CAA foo

Right.

>It is not clear to me how the following is required to be interpreted:
>
>example.net DNAME example.com
>example.net CAA foo

DNAME only maps names below it, so the CAA is fine.

>It might well be that the way to solve the DNAME problem is to specify
>a new zone mapping record that does the job in a way that meets DNS
>admins needs. ...

There's a BNAME proposal kicking around that is sort of a combined
CNAME and DNAME, mapping everything at and below the name.  Or do you
mean something else like a translucent DNAME that only maps if there's
nothing at the actual name?

R's,
John