On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:19:27AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > I'm aware that a lot of the animosity towards ANY has come from Dan's > choice of using it to find records for qmail. I am not a Dan-fan > generally, but on this topic he has made the excellent point that the > query exists, and has well-defined semantics which meet the use case, so > it's legal to use it. I have never understood the DNS literati's > animosity towards that argument.
Dan's use case would not be harmed by refuse-any; qmail sends its queriers to local resolvers, not to authority servers. It gets back whatever happens to be cached, or the minimal answer, and in either case it'll re-query. No harm done. > I find it astonishing that there is this overwhelming "We must preserve > backwards compatibility at all costs!" sentiment on so many ridiculous > topics in the DNS, and yet because people hate the ANY query (and > particularly one software author's perceived misappropriation of it) SO > MUCH y'all are willing to throw backwards compatibility out the door for > something that it's absolutely clear will break deployed applications. This is already deployed; it was introduced as "mimimal-any" in BIND 9.11.0 using the pick-one-RRset method, and cloudflare has been using the HINFO method for over a year. I haven't heard reports of anything being broken. -- Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
