[DNSOP] IETF 114 Call for Agenda Items DNSOP WG
Dear WG, This is a Call for Agenda Items for the IETF 114, 23-29 July in Philadelphia. DNSOP has two sessions requested for the IETF 114: dnsop Session 1 (2:00 requested) (The preliminary IETF 114 agenda will be published later today on 24 June 2022.) Please email the chairs with your requests. *Or* drop us a pull request https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/wg-materials/tree/main/dnsop-ietf114 look for dnsop-ietf114-agenda-requests.md. Please Note: Draft Submission Deadline is Monday 11 July 2022. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates/: 2022-07-11 (Monday): Internet Draft submission cut-off (for all drafts, including -00) by UTC 23:59. Upload using the ID Submission Tool https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/. Thanks, Suzanne Tim Benno ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] IETF 114 Call for Agenda Items DNSOP WG
On 24/06/2022 12:19, Benno Overeinder wrote: DNSOP has two sessions requested for the IETF 114: One session requested, not two. dnsop Session 1 (2:00 requested) -- Benno ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] FW: [Add] Last Call: (Service Binding Mapping for DNS Servers) to Proposed Standard
Dear DNSOP, As this ADD WG document relies on draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https from the DNSOP WG, as the responsible AD for the ADD WG, I will appreciate your review of this short IETF draft. Thank you very much in advance, Regards -éric On 24/06/2022, 19:26, "Add on behalf of The IESG" wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Adaptive DNS Discovery WG (add) to consider the following document: - 'Service Binding Mapping for DNS Servers' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-c...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-07-08. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The SVCB DNS resource record type expresses a bound collection of endpoint metadata, for use when establishing a connection to a named service. DNS itself can be such a service, when the server is identified by a domain name. This document provides the SVCB mapping for named DNS servers, allowing them to indicate support for encrypted transport protocols. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-add-svcb-dns/ This document is referred to by https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-add-ddr/ and the ADD WG has another document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-add-dnr/, which should probably be reviewed at the same time. The SVCB itself is https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https/, currently in the RFC Editor queue. No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. -- Add mailing list a...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] RFC6781 Cooperating DNS provider signed zone migration
Is anyone aware of better descriptions of cooperating DNS operator DNS provider migrations than are found in RFC 6781 section 4.3.5.1 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6781#section-4.3.5.1 and Appendix D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6781#appendix-D Both descriptions could use more detailed prose (especially appendix D that has none), and there are some mistakes in the diagrams. Also which of the two processes do actual hosting operators support? (To my mind, Appendix D is the more realistic model, but it is much more sketchy than 4.3.5.1). Would it make sense to write a BCP that updates 6781 in light of operational best practices in the last decade? -- Viktor. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
