Dear Colleagues,
As we look towards the meeting in London, we have several items in progress,
which we've organized here from the most specific and administratively simple
tasks to the broadest discussion topics.
Not everything called out here is on the London agenda, but we’ve tried to
round up everything that’s in progress as work for the WG, formally or (in a
few cases) informally. We expect to send this out periodically, not least so
people have a chance to call us on it if we drop stuff.
thanks,
Your Chairs
From our existing charter:
1. RESPSIZE draft (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize/)
This item has been in our charter for a very long time, and was at one time
considered almost ready for publication but stalled there. There's been recent
interest in dusting it off and getting it shipped, and with the help of the
previous authors and a new volunteer, a new version has been published. It’s
been suggested we might want to add some more material on DNSSEC and EDNS0,
since the previous version only dealt extensively with the impact on referral
size of adding AAAA records and the bulk of the document was written before the
root was signed or ICANN's registry contracts were written to require DNSSEC
for new gTLDs.
Agenda in London: flag open items, get reviewers, get a timeline for finishing
2. PRIMING draft
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming/)
We’ve also got a new rev of this draft so we can resolve the open questions
and get this published also.
Agenda in London: flag open items, get reviewers, get a timeline for finishing
3. AS112 operations:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-dname/ (WG item)
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jabley-dnsop-rfc6304bis/ (new)
Some additional “bits and pieces” re: AS112 operations. We need reviewers
to move forward with the DNAME one, and for 6304bis if we want to adopt it.
Agenda in London: determine momentum for getting these reviewed, revised,
and published. If not they will be dropped.
4. CDS and related: what are we doing about the topic of DNSSEC in-band key
maintenance? This has previously been somewhat contentious and seems to have
stalled without resolution. We now have current versions of two drafts and
would like to make progress on resolving differences.
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-child-syncronization/
5. 100.64.0.0/10 to reserved list
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-andrews-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303/
Stalled in WGLC on an administrative issue of overlapping IANA registries.
Chairs will review discussion and propose a way forward soon; no WG action
required
NEW TOPICS:
Passive DNS data format:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dulaunoy-kaplan-passive-dns-cof/: needs
review, call for adoption
Authority server placement: no i-d yet; agenda time requested, needs review
FOR DISCUSSION, including possible charter revision:
1. Privacy drafts
There are *at least* four i-ds and a BOF in London specifically for
discussion of privacy and confidentiality with regards to the protocol and
operations of DNS:
Stephane Bortzmeyer's problem statement draft
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy/) is
reasonably on-charter for us.
Stephane's solutions draft
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-privacy-sol/)
Peter Koch's draft on information leakage in the DNS
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-koch-perpass-dns-confidentiality/)
Wouter Wijngaards' draft on opportunistic encryption in the DNS
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wijngaards-dnsop-confidentialdns/)
(plus a few other documents)
We need to decide what we think a useful contribution on this broad topic would
be for DNSOP. Stephane's problem statement draft seems in-scope and we'd like
to call for adoption. Protocol changes as described in two of the drafts
probably need a new WG. In between, this topic provides an opportunity for us
to consider reasonable updates to our charter given evident demand from the
community to examine DNS in light of current privacy concerns.
** This is a major item for the agenda in London; please come prepared
to discuss **
2. Special names
There are two current drafts requesting additions to the Special Use Names
registry as per RFC 6761,
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names/ and
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds/. The
process described in RFC 6761 calls for "IESG action," and the IESG has asked
for DNSOP input, including that we consider adopting these drafts as WG items.
We have already had some discussion on these drafts, and the current process,
based on RFC 6761, makes whether to add these names to the registry the IESG’s
decision. We will continue to discuss these drafts on the mailing list and
provide our advice/observations to the IESG.
There is some interest separately in the broader architectural concerns
around “what should we do with requests/needs for namespaces that look like DNS
names, but aren’t?” As it looks like these uses of DNS-like namespaces by
non-DNS protocols will continue to evolve, and the RFC 6761 process already
seems problematic, we need to consider whether there’s work to be done in
fine-tuning the IETF’s response to these requests from protocol developers who
are trying to do the right thing, don’t want to simply appropriate namespaces a
priori, but are not actually trying to do DNS protocol or operations and simply
want to avoid incompatibility.
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ogud-appsawg-multiple-namespaces/
DNSEXT discussions
- tcp keep-alives
- tcp query-chaining
- DNS cookies
- TLS for DNS
DNS Cookies & TLS for DNS
Donald Eastlake has generated a new version of the DNS Cookies draft, which
incorporated many comments. Several other contributors have also written a new
draft on the use of TLS for DNS over TCP. While these are out of scope, we feel
with the privacy and confidentiality work swirling, there seems to be room to
at least have the discussion.
New charter
DNSOP has been around for awhile, without a recent charter revision even as
topics including privacy, root zone expansion, and changes in the operational
environment have become increasingly important. Our Esteemed AD has been very
open with us pulling things in for discussion, especially if there are
operational impacts from such things. We're working on a new charter that
would include a couple of specific items the WG has already adopted or
considered, and a shift in scope to allow DNSOP to provide a home for problem
statements related to DNS in much the way v6ops does for the IPv6-related
groups and issues. Your suggestions are appreciated.
** This is a major item for the agenda in London; please come prepared
to discuss **_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
