> Begin forwarded message: > > From: Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Alias mode processing in auths for > draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-01 > Date: 6 August 2020 at 06:50:41 AEST > To: Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40google....@dmarc.ietf.org> > > > >> On 6 Aug 2020, at 03:07, Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40google....@dmarc.ietf.org >> <mailto:bemasc=40google....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:06 PM Pieter Lexis <pieter.le...@powerdns.com >> <mailto:pieter.le...@powerdns.com>> wrote: >> ... >> Do *both* alias-target{1,2}.example.net <http://example.net/>|SVBC records >> end up in the >> ADDITIONAL section. Or are they (as is the case with an in-zone CNAME) >> considered an answer and should they go into the ANSWER section? >> >> I think Section 4.1 is pretty clear that everything goes in the Additional >> section. (But this can be changed!) > > It MUST go in the additional section. It is not actually a alias. It is a > record that says what the names of the servers for the server are. This is > no different to MX or SRV in that usage. Just stop using the loaded word > “ALIAS” as it isn’t a alias. > >> I find the alias mode semantics (on the DNS-level) unclear and >> under-specified in the draft. I look forward to guidance from the authors. >> >> And I look forward to guidance from you! How do you think it should work? >> Send text! >> >> Personally, I'd like to know which of these questions actually need to be >> resolved in the standard, and which can safely be left to the discretion of >> implementors. Is there a compatibility concern with any of these questions, >> or is it only a question of consistency across implementations? >> >> Conceptually, AliasMode is not a CNAME: it only affects SVCB queries (not >> other RR types), and can safely be implemented entirely as an RFC 3597 >> Unknown RR Type. That suggests that it is at least safe, and perhaps >> least-surprising, for the authoritative server to put all responses for >> other owner names in the Additional section, as the current text seems to >> indicate fairly clearly. >> >> P..S. The text on this point has recently changed: >> https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/pull/199#discussion_r444979971. >> One of the questions there is what should happen for >> AliasMode->CNAME->ServiceMode->AAAA, all in-bailiwick. The draft says >> "Clients and recursive resolvers MUST follow CNAMEs as normal.", but it no >> longer says anything about authoritatives. >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> DNSOP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org > <mailto:ma...@isc.org> -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
