Re: [DNSOP] ANAME loop detection

if HTTPSSVC goes through, i think we can all stop talking about ANAME. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME loop detection

Matthijs, On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:47 AM Matthijs Mekking wrote: > >> Also what is wrong with an authoritative server already giving out more > >> optimal answers than just the ANAME and sibling address records? > > > > I also understand the sibling address records only as a mean to gap > > the a

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME loop detection

Jan, On 7/8/19 11:32 AM, Jan Včelák wrote: > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 4:55 PM Matthijs Mekking wrote: >> On 7/4/19 2:32 PM, Matthew Pounsett wrote: >>> I would say they should rely on that. Why shouldn't they? Isn't our >>> goal to get downstream servers to adopt the extension and do their own >>>

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME loop detection

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 4:55 PM Matthijs Mekking wrote: > On 7/4/19 2:32 PM, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > > I would say they should rely on that. Why shouldn't they? Isn't our > > goal to get downstream servers to adopt the extension and do their own > > lookup? The server-side lookups and sibling r

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME loop detection

Matthijs, On 04/07/2019 15.19, Matthijs Mekking wrote: On 7/4/19 2:29 PM, Shane Kerr wrote: 2. QTYPE=ANAME: According to the current version of the draft, server answering to ANAME must include the ANAME and should include the sibling records. Let's modify the behavior and say the server shoul

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME loop detection

On 7/4/19 5:39 PM, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > > > On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 10:54, Matthijs Mekking > wrote: > > Matthew, > > > I would say they should rely on that.  Why shouldn't they?  Isn't our > > goal to get downstream servers to adopt the extensio

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME loop detection

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 10:54, Matthijs Mekking wrote: > Matthew, > > > I would say they should rely on that. Why shouldn't they? Isn't our > > goal to get downstream servers to adopt the extension and do their own > > lookup? The server-side lookups and sibling records are bolt-ons to > > handl

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME loop detection

Jan Včelák wrote: > > 2. QTYPE=ANAME: According to the current version of the draft, server > answering to ANAME must include the ANAME and should include the > sibling records. Let's modify the behavior and say the server should > not (must not) include the sibling records. Then the server perfor

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME loop detection

Matthew, On 7/4/19 2:32 PM, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > > > On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 05:54, Matthijs Mekking > wrote: > > > > > 1. EDNS "do not follow ANAME" option: The requester would indicate > > that it is capable of following ANAME and that the server

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME loop detection

Shane, On 7/4/19 2:29 PM, Shane Kerr wrote: >>> 2. QTYPE=ANAME: According to the current version of the draft, server >>> answering to ANAME must include the ANAME and should include the >>> sibling records. Let's modify the behavior and say the server should >>> not (must not) include the sibling

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME loop detection

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 05:54, Matthijs Mekking wrote: > > > > 1. EDNS "do not follow ANAME" option: The requester would indicate > > that it is capable of following ANAME and that the server receiving > > the query should not include the ANAME sibling address records. The > > loop detection would

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME loop detection

Matthijs, On 04/07/2019 11.54, Matthijs Mekking wrote: I like something like option 2 the best, I'll react to your options below. I like something like option 1. Details below as well. 😊 On 7/4/19 11:37 AM, Jan Včelák wrote: Hello. [ ... ] We had been thinking about how this could be f

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME loop detection

Jan, I like something like option 2 the best, I'll react to your options below. On 7/4/19 11:37 AM, Jan Včelák wrote: > Hello. > [ ... ] > We had been thinking about how this could be fixed and here is what we > have came with: > > 1. EDNS "do not follow ANAME" option: The requester would indi

[DNSOP] ANAME loop detection

Hello. I would like to resurrect the discussion about ANAME loops handling and detection. I attempted to write a discussion section on this topic for draft-ietf-dnsop-aname [https://github.com/each/draft-aname/pull/70] and we also talked about this a little off-list with Shane and Matthijs. If yo