Re: [DNSOP] ANAME discussion

2019-04-10 Thread Vladimír Čunát
On 4/9/19 6:44 PM, Richard Gibson wrote: > If an implementation has a resolver, then that component is the > logical place for deduplication (e.g., the second inbound query for a > given ANAME target does not result in a second outbound query, but > rather waits on completion of the first). Oh,

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME discussion

2019-04-09 Thread Tony Finch
Vladimír Čunát wrote: > > I can't even see a simple way of detecting this.  At least in the > implementation suggested by Jan where you have an authoritative that > calls out to a resolver (which calls out to authoritatives...) You could prevent the loop from leading to a circular dependency,

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME discussion

2019-04-09 Thread Richard Gibson
If an implementation has a resolver, then that component is the logical place for deduplication (e.g., the second inbound query for a given ANAME target does not result in a second outbound query, but rather waits on completion of the first). On 4/9/19 11:15, Vladimír Čunát wrote: On 4/9/19

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME discussion

2019-04-09 Thread Vladimír Čunát
On 4/9/19 3:38 PM, Richard Gibson wrote: > This loop is one reason of several to eliminate inline resolution for > ANAME if possible and minimize it otherwise, but is not quite as bad > as it seems because all involved servers can—and should—avoid issuing > queries that are redundant with an

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME discussion

2019-04-09 Thread Richard Gibson
This loop is one reason of several to eliminate inline resolution for ANAME if possible and minimize it otherwise, but is not quite as bad as it seems because all involved servers can—and should—avoid issuing queries that are redundant with an already-active request. But even if they don't,

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME discussion

2019-04-09 Thread Jan Včelák
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:54 PM Tony Finch wrote: > WRT loop detection, it is much easier if the additional section in the > response from the resolver contains the chain(s). The draft doesn't > specify that at the moment; maybe it should. I meant a situation where an authoritative server is doing

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME discussion

2019-04-02 Thread Vladimír Čunát
On 4/2/19 7:31 PM, Olli Vanhoja wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:03 PM Tony Finch wrote: >> WRT loop detection, it is much easier if the additional section in the >> response from the resolver contains the chain(s). The draft doesn't >> specify that at the moment; maybe it should. > Why is it

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME discussion

2019-04-02 Thread Tony Finch
Olli Vanhoja wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:03 PM Tony Finch wrote: > > > > WRT loop detection, it is much easier if the additional section in the > > response from the resolver contains the chain(s). The draft doesn't > > specify that at the moment; maybe it should. > > Why is it easier?

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME discussion

2019-04-02 Thread Olli Vanhoja
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:03 PM Tony Finch wrote: > > WRT loop detection, it is much easier if the additional section in the > response from the resolver contains the chain(s). The draft doesn't > specify that at the moment; maybe it should. Why is it easier? I would think some people may even

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME discussion

2019-04-02 Thread Tony Finch
Jan Včelák submitted a GitHub issue about loop detection which I think should be discussed by the wg not just the authors. https://github.com/each/draft-aname/issues/45 The -02 draft requires that CNAME+ANAME chains are chased to their ultimate target. There are a few reasons for this: * It is

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME discussion

2019-04-02 Thread Jan Včelák
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:58 PM Tony Finch wrote: > There were several useful points at the mic; thanks Paul Hoffman for > noting them in the minutes (especially because I could not remember who > said what). In no particular order... Tim also mentioned that the vendors have their own secret

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME discussion

2019-03-30 Thread Matthijs Mekking
Tony, Thanks for listing these points. I converted them to issues (together with some other issues that people mentioned last week and on the list). https://github.com/each/draft-aname/issues I am more than happy to take on the editorial work. Best regards, Matthijs On 3/29/19 9:58

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME discussion

2019-03-30 Thread Olli Vanhoja
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:59 PM Tony Finch wrote: > > Thanks to Matthijs Mekking for the good summary this morning. I am happy > for someone else to take over editorial/authorship duties on the draft. > I would be more than happy to help with this draft and to get in through the process.

[DNSOP] ANAME discussion

2019-03-29 Thread Tony Finch
(Starting a new thread so my mailer doesn't sort the new discussion with messages from November!) Thanks to Matthijs Mekking for the good summary this morning. I am happy for someone else to take over editorial/authorship duties on the draft. There were several useful points at the mic; thanks