On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:32 AM Matthijs Mekking <matth...@pletterpet.nl> wrote:
> All, > > > While working on the next version of the ANAME draft, one additional > question came up: When querying for A or AAAA, we want to include the > ANAME in the response as a signal to anticipate aliasing. Should we > include the ANAME record in the answer section or the additional section? > > The main argument for putting it in the additional section is that given > the experience with DNAME, putting the ANAME in the answer section there > is a risk of interop problems (because there is an unexpected record in > the answer section). > > The main argument for putting it in the answer section is that putting > it in the additional section implies a lower trust level, and that the > record is optional and can be removed when minimizing responses. > > Does the working group have any thoughts on this? > > Issue is tracked here: https://github.com/each/draft-aname/issues/62 > > > Best regards, > > Matthijs > If the camel was not already overloaded, then a cautious approach might be to put it in the additional section, *unless* there was a capability signal in the request that indicated that the requester would understand ANAME, or at least not have a problem if it were in the answer section. I am guessing that the capability signal would be some EDNS option, or perhaps an EDNS version. Is that reasonable? -- Bob Harold
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
