The introduction of draft-ietf-dnsop-aname-02 includes this text: If the web site is hosted by a third-party provider, the ideal way to provision its name in the DNS is using a CNAME record, so that the third party provider retains control over the mapping from names to IP address(es).
I have some issue with the use of the term "ideal" there. At best it's merely "expedient", but either way it'ws an abuse of the true original semanatics of the CNAME record. AIUI, various protocols have at times required that when a CNAME record is encountered that the target of that record (the "canonical name") be the one subsequently used in protocol exchanges. [e.g. the apparently obsolete text in ยง5.2.2 of RFC 1123]. This reinforced the semantic that the RHS of a CNAME is the "one true name" and that the owner name is just an alias for it [RFC 2181]. Browsers, unfortunately, never did this. Name-based virtual hosting actually required the opposite - you have to put the original owner name in the 'Host:' header. If we've moved to a world where those original semantics really no longer apply, I think that needs to be written down in a consensus document somewhere. Ray
pEpkey.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
