[DNSOP] Announcement of ICANN DNS Symposium

[Matt Larson]

(This email is sent from my personal account because that's how I'm subscribed, 
and I apologize if you receive multiple copies.)

Dear colleagues,

I'd like to invite you to the first-ever ICANN DNS Symposium, which will be 
held in Madrid, Spain, on Saturday, 13 May 2017.

ICANN's Office of the CTO hopes to make the ICANN DNS Symposium a regular event 
for the DNS technical community with changing themes covering different aspects 
of DNS.  For this initial event, we are focusing on DNS-related activities 
within ICANN.  There will be presentations relating to DNS research, security, 
root server operations, IANA and more.  Multiple ICANN departments will 
present, including the Office of the CTO, DNS Engineering (responsible for 
L-root operations), PTI/IANA and the Global Domains Division (gTLDs).  Our goal 
is to be transparent with the community about DNS activities happening at ICANN 
and solicit feedback and suggestions.

More information about the Symposium is available at https://www.icann.org/ids.

A welcome reception will be held on Friday evening, 12 May.  Also, please note 
that the Symposium is colocated with several other events:

- ICANN GDD Industry Summit (9-11 May) (https://www.icann.org/gddsummit)
- The 6th Registration Operations Workshop (12 May) (http://regiops.net)
- ICANN DNS Symposium (13 May) (https://www.icann.org/ids)
- OARC 26 (DNS-OARC Workshop) (14-15 May) (https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/26)

All events will be held in the same venue, Hotel NH Collection Madrid 
Eurobuilding, Calle de Padre Damián, 23, 28036, Madrid, Spain.

Register for the Symposium now at 
https://registration.icann.org/register.php?id=dns-symposium-2017.

I hope to see you in Spain!

Matt
--
Matt Larson 
VP of Research, Office of the CTO, ICANN
+1 240 459-9562 (mobile)

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

[DNSOP] virtual interim DNSOP WG meeting and current status, special use names

[Suzanne Woolf]

Hi,

We’ve been behind the curve because one of us (Suzanne) has been ill, but 
here’s where we are, including time/date for the virtual interim we’re planning:

1. There’s a new revision of the special use names problem statement, 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/ 


Please review, particularly if you haven’t looked at it recently or had new 
concerns raised by the discussion in Seoul and on the list about the HOMENET WG.

We’re starting Working Group Last Call on it (see next message for the formal 
kickoff).

2. The alt-tld draft has been revised in view of the discussion in homenet 
about DNSSEC resolution and DNS protocol for local names under .homenet. That 
too has been posted and Warren has kicked off a discussion here ("Subject: 
ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.") about how to handle that issue: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ 


3. We still want (and have time) to do a virtual interim WG meeting before 
Chicago. We’ve picked a date:

Thursday 17 February, 19:00 UTC, which is:

19:00 UTC
20:00 CEST (Frankfurt, Stockholm)
14:00 EST (North American Eastern)
11:00 PST (North American Western)
06:00 AEDT (Sydney, Melbourne)

(Webex details will follow)

As usual, scheduling isn’t perfect for anyone but we tried to cover the largest 
possible area of the globe adequately.

Preliminary agenda for the meeting is:

1. Issues from WGLC on the problem statement 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/ 
)
2. Proposals for moving forward:
* reviews of alt-tld; ready for WGLC? will it help? 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ 
)
* stop here? (leave RFC 6761 as-is, continue to process 
registry changes case-by-case)
* proposals for process revision/update?
3. Next steps: 
* any drafts to write?
* any input or liaison to request from the IAB? (regarding 
either namespace architecture or relationships of the IETF with other groups)
4. AOB: your I-D or proposed action for the WG/IESG/IAB here


thanks,
Suzanne & Tim

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 03:28:29PM -0500,
 Warren Kumari  wrote 
 a message of 103 lines which said:

> or 2: request that the IANA insert an insecure delegation in the
> root, pointing to a: AS112 or b: an empty zone on the root or c"
> something similar.

Here, people may be interested by draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root (expired
but could be revived). The main objection was the privacy issue
(sending user queries to the "random" operators of AS112.)

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

[DNSOP] correction Re: virtual interim DNSOP WG meeting and current status, special use names

[Suzanne Woolf]

And because it’s been that day….

Thanks for the off-list nudge, that’s ***Thursday 16 February*** for most of 
the world, Friday 17 February for the AP region.

We’ve blocked two hours for the meeting.

Apologies for the error.


Suzanne


> On Feb 2, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Suzanne Woolf  wrote:
> 3. We still want (and have time) to do a virtual interim WG meeting before 
> Chicago. We’ve picked a date:
> 
> Thursday 17 February, 19:00 UTC, which is:
> 
> 19:00 UTC
> 20:00 CEST (Frankfurt, Stockholm)
> 14:00 EST (North American Eastern)
> 11:00 PST (North American Western)
> 06:00 AEDT (Sydney, Melbourne)
> 
> (Webex details will follow)
> 
> As usual, scheduling isn’t perfect for anyone but we tried to cover the 
> largest possible area of the globe adequately.
> 
> Preliminary agenda for the meeting is:
> 
>   1. Issues from WGLC on the problem statement 
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/ 
> )
>   2. Proposals for moving forward:
>   * reviews of alt-tld; ready for WGLC? will it help? 
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ 
> )
>   * stop here? (leave RFC 6761 as-is, continue to process 
> registry changes case-by-case)
>   * proposals for process revision/update?
>   3. Next steps: 
>   * any drafts to write?
>   * any input or liaison to request from the IAB? (regarding 
> either namespace architecture or relationships of the IETF with other groups)
>   4. AOB: your I-D or proposed action for the WG/IESG/IAB here
> 
> 
> thanks,
> Suzanne & Tim
> 

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

[DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

[Suzanne Woolf]

This message opens a Working Group Last Call for:

"Special-Use Names Problem Statement"
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/ 

Proposed status: informational

Starts: 2 Feb. 2017
Ends: 23 Feb. 2017 (3 weeks)

Discussion should go to the mailing list. 

Is this draft ready to advance for publication as an Informational RFC, and as 
guidance for possible updates to RFC 6761? Does it describe the relevant issues 
clearly, and cover all the relevant ones that should be taken into account in 
future work in the IETF on the special use names registry or RFC 6761?

If not, can you suggest changes that would get your support for advancing it? 
(“Send text” if possible!)


thanks,
Suzanne & Tim

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

[John Levine]

>If not, can you suggest changes that would get your support for advancing it? 
>(“Send text” if possible!)

It's closer than I had remembered.

In the problem paragraph that starts at the bottom of page 6, on
domain names that have been commandeered, I'd like it to say that
there is no agreement on how to decide that a name has been
comandeered, nor if or how to revisit a name to decide that it's been
uncomandeered.

(For that last, I'm thinking about .BELKIN, where the routers that
leak the name will eventually all fail, or .CORP where people may use
it less now that CAs don't sign certs any more.)

I'd also like a mention of DNSSEC.  DNSSEC is intended to provide a
signature chain from the root to any leaf, but there is no way to
chain to a SUTLD.  There's also no agreement what to do with DNSSEC
and existing SUTLDs, whether to have DNSSEC say they don't exist, or
to create some sort of unsigned pseudo-delegation, or something else.

R's,
John

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop