In article <05429b5d-904b-4913-9843-654c917de...@powerdns.com> you write: >> 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.
Seems to me that it belongs in the answer section, since for aname-aware reasolvers the aname is the answer. >> 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. Type bitmaps like the ones in NSEC wouldn't be hard to implement. Add some sanity rules saying that type bits for DNSSEC types and the like are ignored, and it's an error to include any types also present at the same name. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
