Erik Nygren <erik+i...@nygren.org> wrote: > I don't follow how this works for the non-trivial static case. > You have two authoritative parties, one for the authoritative zone > and one authoritative for the ANAME target. > Both are operated by different entities. > > The logic and policy for the ANAME target (involving geo-ip, GSLB, etc) > is often highly dynamic and proprietary. How does this get conveyed > from the authorities for the ANAME target to the authorities for the zone > containing the ANAME? This is where we seem to get stuck.
I imagine a boiled-dry draft would leave this unspecified, allowing implementations to be as lazy or eager as they want. I think this enthusiasm to accurately reproduce all the crazy DNS tricks is doomed to failure, and not actually necessary. If a domain owner really truly wants to spread their domain with Brand X secret sauce they can get Brand X to host it, and if they can live with a cheap 3rd party ANAME knock-off then that can be done much more simply. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Fisher, German Bight: Cyclonic mainly southwesterly, becoming westerly, 4 to 6. Slight or moderate becoming moderate or rough. Wintry showers. Good, occasionally poor. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
