On 7/4/17 6:13 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017, Dave Lawrence wrote:
This is just a "keep alive" so as to keep this draft in consideration as
one of the multiple solutions in this problem space while DNSOP decides
whether this is a problem worth solving.
I still think it's the most elegant of those proposed ;-)
I whole-heartedly agree, as Ray's idea was the basic conclusion I'd
arrived at independently.
I agree.
I remember we discussed the various drafts in a meeting (city of which
escapes me) and the sense of the people in the room, and the folks I
talked to afterward was that the preference was for a client to *ask*
for extra things, rather than the server *forcing* extra answers back.
I think Ray's qtype draft fits this. The chairs should finally discuss
having a Call for Adoption on this after we've heard the updates
And I think any ANAME/ALIAS record should be used in combination with
these, and of itself not define any new special handling.
Well that's an interesting way to approach it.
Although, we should also be a bit careful not to create a new ANY type
query that will get abused for amplification, so it should really all
have source verified IP transports (DNS-COOKIES, TCP, etc)
The is good guidance, and some wording like this would be useful in the
qtypes draft.
Another issue to look at is returning any prefix special records,
such as TLSA records which do not match the QNAME, but are strongly
related to the QNAME and would benefit from being returned along.
Excellent idea. One reason we know why SRV records are not used by many
is no one wants to do additional lookups.
tim
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
