> On 19 Jun 2018, at 15:02, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > > In article > <CAJhMdTO2kj+nUqESg3ew=wwZuB9OzkJE6pST=mae7phiek4...@mail.gmail.com> you > write: >> This sounds like a lot of work and likely to cause camel indigestion. > > Agreed but it doesn't seem all that much less work than a well > specified version of ANAME, and it avoids the ANAME ugliness of making > authoritative servers do recursive lookups.
It's the full mesh of CNAME-related behaviours of all the various actors that gives me the fear, mainly. At least with a new specification you get to try and start with a clean slate and you generally only need one fall-back behaviour for each kind of actor talking to each other kind of actor; by changing CNAME behaviour (yet again) we'd be making an already hairy situation even more hirsute. Joe
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
