Hi,
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 04:45:51PM -0700, Marek Vavruša wrote:
> Me and Olafur wrote a draft on adding AAAA records to A answers and
> treating them as authoritative.
The last time this was proposed, in DNSEXT when Olafur was co-chair,
the proposal was rejected on the following grounds:
1. We had no idea what resolvers who weren't expecting the AAAA
in the Answer section would do. This draft says what is "more
likely", but I have no way of evaluating that claim. Without an
EDNS0 signal, I think this proposal is pretty dangerous.
2. It isn't clear what a cache is supposed to do when it gets an
A and has a AAAA already in cache, particularly if there isn't an
A record. This draft is far too sketchy on that case. Can the
AAAA satisfy queries for AAAA? (I think section 4 says yes, but
it's a little terse.)
3. This amounts to special server-side processing, and there'd
been a traditional resistance to
4. The proposal had been made several times before, and always
rejected; what's different this time? (This argument always
seemed the weakest to me.)
Making it optional behaviour the way this proposal does seems to
introduce quite a lot of confusion. Is a happy-eyeballs resolver
supposed to take the non-existence of the AAAA in the answer as some
sort of evidence that the AAAA is never coming? (I think this
proposal says, "No," but I'm sceptical that's what will happen.) Why
doesn't happy eyeballs do what is necessary here?
I think I'd feel a lot more comfortable with anything along these
lines if there were a signal from the resolver stating that it knows
what to do, but that still brings up server-side processing.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
