Re: [DNSOP] New draft for ALIAS/ANAME type

2017-03-31 Thread Tony Finch
Evan Hunt wrote: > (Incidentally, I'm working on a somewhat more ambitious ANAME draft with > Peter van Dijk and Anthony Eden, who has kindly agreed to merge his efforts > with ours. I expect to post it in a few days, stay tuned.) Does the more ambitious version use the NSEC rdata

Re: [DNSOP] New draft for ALIAS/ANAME type

2017-03-31 Thread Peter van Dijk
On 31 Mar 2017, at 17:54, Tim Wicinski wrote: On 3/31/17 10:33 AM, John Levine wrote: Now we're back to the same issue I raised with BULK. Everyone now has to carefully check what features are supported by all of their secondary servers, as opposed to now where I don't even know or care

[DNSOP] Initial version of the minutes uploaded

2017-03-31 Thread Tim Wicinski
I've uplaoded the draft version of the minutes from the last DNSOP meeting. Please take a look and make sure you're quoted as you expected to be thanks tim https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-98-dnsop/ ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org

Re: [DNSOP] New draft for ALIAS/ANAME type

2017-03-31 Thread John R Levine
This gets you a single lookup with no followup queries required once the recursive server supports this. If the client is still talking to a legacy server it would still need to do followup queries for missing records. I like this but there's an obvious question: if the recursive server has

Re: [DNSOP] Microphone question on back-references - BULK RR

2017-03-31 Thread Woodworth, John R
> From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Dickson > > > Apologies but I did not hear the full question regarding BULK RR’s > > and the perl like back-references. If you could please repeat > > the question we would be happy to comment. > > > > > > Thanks, > > John > > > >

Re: [DNSOP] New draft for ALIAS/ANAME type

2017-03-31 Thread John Levine
In article <9232f4f4-772f-48aa-80fb-c990662af...@powerdns.com> you write: >On 31 Mar 2017, at 1:08, John Levine wrote: > >>> If you sign offline, what happens when the A records change? >> >> You Lose(tm). For that matter, you lose even when the A records don't >> change since the signer only

Re: [DNSOP] New draft for ALIAS/ANAME type

2017-03-31 Thread Tim Wicinski
On 3/31/17 10:33 AM, John Levine wrote: Now we're back to the same issue I raised with BULK. Everyone now has to carefully check what features are supported by all of their secondary servers, as opposed to now where I don't even know or care what software they use. Some of us hoped we got

Re: [DNSOP] New draft for ALIAS/ANAME type

2017-03-31 Thread Peter van Dijk
Hello Tony, On 31 Mar 2017, at 12:10, Tony Finch wrote: Evan Hunt wrote: (Incidentally, I'm working on a somewhat more ambitious ANAME draft with Peter van Dijk and Anthony Eden, who has kindly agreed to merge his efforts with ours. I expect to post it in a few days, stay

Re: [DNSOP] draft-tale-dnsop-edns-clientid

2017-03-31 Thread Peter van Dijk
On 28 Mar 2017, at 21:56, Barry Raveendran Greene wrote: On Mar 28, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Peter van Dijk wrote: Please note that neither draft handles the use case of also passing the port number, which in a world of growing CGN deployment, may soon prove quite

Re: [DNSOP] draft-tale-dnsop-edns-clientid

2017-03-31 Thread Peter van Dijk
On 31 Mar 2017, at 16:09, Peter van Dijk wrote: On 28 Mar 2017, at 23:27, Dave Lawrence wrote: Peter van Dijk writes: Please note that neither draft handles the use case of also passing the port number, which in a world of growing CGN deployment, may soon prove quite important. I agree

Re: [DNSOP] New draft for ALIAS/ANAME type

2017-03-31 Thread Peter van Dijk
On 31 Mar 2017, at 1:08, John Levine wrote: If you sign offline, what happens when the A records change? You Lose(tm). For that matter, you lose even when the A records don't change since the signer only sees the ANAME, not the A or . There are PowerDNS ALIAS deployments that signs

Re: [DNSOP] draft-tale-dnsop-edns-clientid

2017-03-31 Thread Peter van Dijk
On 28 Mar 2017, at 23:27, Dave Lawrence wrote: > Peter van Dijk writes: >> Please note that neither draft handles the use case of also passing the >> port number, which in a world of growing CGN deployment, may soon prove >> quite important. > > I agree that neither handles it explicitly. Ray's

Re: [DNSOP] New draft for ALIAS/ANAME type

2017-03-31 Thread Mark Andrews
The long term way to fix this is for DNS servers to *always* fill in the additional section for select RR types (e.g. SRV) including chasing down missing additional records and setting TC=1 if those additional records will not fit for recursive queries. TC=1 is already required when glue records