[DNSOP] A new review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-10 -- part (B)

2012-04-04 Thread Alfred Hönes
As indicated in the previous message, I have revisited the "DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2" I-D and performed a full review from scratch for the most recent draft version, draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-10. For convenience, and to accommodate message size limitations, I have split my review

[DNSOP] A new review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-10 -- part (A)

2012-04-04 Thread Alfred Hönes
After a long delay, I have revisited the "DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2" I-D and performed a full review from scratch for the most recent draft version, draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-10. For convenience, and to accommodate message size limitations, I have split my review comments into 3 pa

Re: [DNSOP] Request to adopt draft-sotomayor-as112-ipv4-cull as WG item

2012-04-04 Thread Paul Vixie
On 2012-04-04 5:05 PM, Tony Finch wrote: > Joe Abley wrote: >> On 2012-04-04, at 11:31, Tony Finch wrote: >> >>> I think BIND treats NXDOMAIN replies with the wrong authority as a >>> FORMERR. Domainers are returning positive replies which BIND does not >>> subject to a SOA sanity check. >> [real

Re: [DNSOP] Request to adopt draft-sotomayor-as112-ipv4-cull as WG item

2012-04-04 Thread Tony Finch
Joe Abley wrote: > On 2012-04-04, at 11:31, Tony Finch wrote: > > > I think BIND treats NXDOMAIN replies with the wrong authority as a > > FORMERR. Domainers are returning positive replies which BIND does not > > subject to a SOA sanity check. > > [real test] > All other nameservers gave a prompt

Re: [DNSOP] Request to adopt draft-sotomayor-as112-ipv4-cull as WG item

2012-04-04 Thread Joe Abley
On 2012-04-04, at 11:31, Tony Finch wrote: > I think BIND treats NXDOMAIN replies with the wrong authority as a > FORMERR. Domainers are returning positive replies which BIND does not > subject to a SOA sanity check. monster.hopcount.ca is serving the fake (empty apart from apex SOA/NS and glue)

Re: [DNSOP] Request to adopt draft-sotomayor-as112-ipv4-cull as WG item

2012-04-04 Thread Tony Finch
Joe Abley wrote: > > the add/drop problem is a lot simpler if every AS112 node hosts the zone > > $ORIGIN . > @ SOA ... > NS something > NS sensible > > and answers authoritatively on the addresses corresponding to > "something" and "sensible", returning NXDOMAIN for everything in the

Re: [DNSOP] Request to adopt draft-sotomayor-as112-ipv4-cull as WG item

2012-04-04 Thread Paul Vixie
On 2012-04-04 12:20 PM, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote: > > It seems that after delivering my presentation on subsequent AS112 > delegations in Quebec City, I hadn't recalled what the group thought > about adopting this work as a dnsop item. So, I'm soliciting feedback > on this request. I have

Re: [DNSOP] Request to adopt draft-sotomayor-as112-ipv4-cull as WG item

2012-04-04 Thread Joe Abley
On 2012-04-04, at 08:20, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote: > It seems that after delivering my presentation on subsequent AS112 > delegations in Quebec City, I hadn't recalled what the group thought about > adopting this work as a dnsop item. So, I'm soliciting feedback on this > request

[DNSOP] Request to adopt draft-sotomayor-as112-ipv4-cull as WG item

2012-04-04 Thread William F. Maton Sotomayor
All, It seems that after delivering my presentation on subsequent AS112 delegations in Quebec City, I hadn't recalled what the group thought about adopting this work as a dnsop item. So, I'm soliciting feedback on this request. I have posted version 03 for your consideration. Thanks, wfm