[DNSOP] Solicit review to draft-wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery-03

Dear DNSOPers: The draft-wu-dns-pce-discovery was presented twice in the PCE Working Group since Last Berlin meeting (http://tools.ietf.org/html/ draft-wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery-03 ) and is dealing with DNS based PCE discovery. Currently t

Re: [DNSOP] prefetch (HAMMER_TIME) draft

Thanks for the complete answer. As you mention, this benefits not only the end users but also authoritative and resolving servers (especially with DNSSEC). BR Daniel On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Brian Somers wrote: > Using a sample of our US traffic over a 7 minute period, I see 112,044 > l

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group of the IETF. Title : Add 100.64.0.0/10 prefixes to IPv4 Locally-Served DNS Zones Registry. Author(s) : M.

Re: [DNSOP] CSYNC. Or CDS. Or something completely different.

On 2013-11-06, at 17:08, Mark Andrews wrote: > Guess what > every time the Registrant does a DNS lookup in the Registry zone > it is talking directly with the Registry. You're conflating registry services with DNS services. This is a common mistake. Joe signature.asc Description: Message s

Re: [DNSOP] CSYNC. Or CDS. Or something completely different.

In message <527a17a6.3050...@nlnetlabs.nl>, Matthijs Mekking writes: > Hi, > > In yesterday's meeting, it was not clear to everyone why there are two > approaches to synchronize records between child and parent. Also, a > "new" approach by Mark was being discussed, doing the synchronization > wit

Re: [DNSOP] prefetch (HAMMER_TIME) draft

Using a sample of our US traffic over a 7 minute period, I see 112,044 lookups of www.facebook.com out of a total of 4,081,834 queries (2.74%). That's 266 www.facebook.com queries per second. Doing a lookup where our resolver is only missing star.c10r.facebook.com (which the www.facebook.com CNA

[DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-dname-00.txt

Hi all, The authors would very much appreciate people here casting their eye over this text, and providing feedback on (a) clarity of the text and (b) technical viability of the approach. Thanks, Joe Begin forwarded message: > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > Subject: New Version Notificati

Re: [DNSOP] prefetch (HAMMER_TIME) draft

Hi, Thanks for providing this information. "- Under normal circumstances, when a record expires, all clients querying that record suffer (unnecessary) latency while the record is being re-queried upstream. Fixing this was a convenient benefit." Do you have specific metrics to measure/evaluate t

[DNSOP] prefetch (HAMMER_TIME) draft

Hi, I mentioned at the dnsop talk at IETF88 yesterday that I have some (hopefully) useful information regarding W.C.A. Wijngaards' prefetch work. At OpenDNS, we implemented the same thing some months ago (without knowing about this work) with the following differences: - Our HAMMER_TIME is set

Re: [DNSOP] Moving parent-child-update documents forward

On Nov 6, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > (I will speak only as myself for the moment ) > > I am in solid agreement that we need to move these documents forward. In > Berlin, we sent back Wes, Warren and Olafur to resolve their differences, > merge them (if possible) and present the

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-dname-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group of the IETF. Title : AS112 Redirection using DNAME Author(s) : Joe Abley Brian D

Re: [DNSOP] Moving parent-child-update documents forward

(I will speak only as myself for the moment ) I am in solid agreement that we need to move these documents forward. In Berlin, we sent back Wes, Warren and Olafur to resolve their differences, merge them (if possible) and present the various options. I've think they've done that and don't it a

Re: [DNSOP] Moving parent-child-update documents forward

Dear colleagues, On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 05:49:54AM -0800, Dan York wrote: > I don't see why we can't adopt the CDS/CDNSKEY and CSYNC drafts as working > group documents and continue to move them along - we've had significant > discussion on these over the past several meetings and also on the lis

[DNSOP] Moving parent-child-update documents forward

Peter & Tim, Unfortunately we ran out of time in the DNSOP session yesterday and I don't feel we left with a plan to move forward on the various "parent-child-update" documents and scenarios. However I think it is *critical* that we DO move forward with these documents as this issue is one of the

[DNSOP] Some requirements for updating parent zones.

* must be able to authenticate the transaction. * must be able to update address records to support renumbering. * must be able to update DS records to support DNSKEY rollover but key management tools. * must work for unsigned zones (parent and/or child).

[DNSOP] CSYNC. Or CDS. Or something completely different.

Hi, In yesterday's meeting, it was not clear to everyone why there are two approaches to synchronize records between child and parent. Also, a "new" approach by Mark was being discussed, doing the synchronization with an UPDATE message. First of all, Mark's approach is not new, this has already b