Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

On Apr 29, 2016 4:15 PM, "John Levine" wrote: [Christian Huitema wrote:] > >John is correct there. This draft appears to solve a marginal problem, > while > >creating a huge privacy issues. In fact, I could not find any privacy > >consideration in the text, while provisions such are placing a use

Re: [DNSOP] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-00.txt

Bob Harold Friday, April 29, 2016 06:44 On 29/04/2016 02:01, Jiankang Yao wrote: > Dear all, > > We submit a draft about "A DNS Query including A Main Question > with Accompanying Questions". > >Any comments are welcome.

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

>John is correct there. This draft appears to solve a marginal problem, while >creating a huge privacy issues. In fact, I could not find any privacy >consideration in the text, while provisions such are placing a user name and >location in a PTR record are really privacy hostile. I think the author

Re: [DNSOP] NXDOMAIN synthesis for NSEC3 (was call for adoption for draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse)

On 4/28/16, 18:05, "DNSOP on behalf of Matthew Pounsett" wrote: > On 28 April 2016 at 06:37, Edward Lewis wrote: >> >> Not sure if that answers the question fully. Hope it helps. > > It helps, for sure. So if I understand you correctly, at the TLD level it's > 4:1 in favour of NSEC3, and all

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

On Friday, April 29, 2016 9:56 AM, John Levine wrote: > > >So, ISPs not doing reverse DNS for IPv6, like my current ISP, are > >making it impossible to use your own mail server to deliver mail over > >IPv6. I think they are doing a serious disservice to the open internet. > > Aw, c'mon. This argu

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption for draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse

At Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:09:30 +0200, Matthijs Mekking wrote: > >> - I don't see why setting the CD bit is an indication that NSEC(3) > >> aggressive usage should not be used. Could you elaborate on that? > > I am still hoping that someone could response to this :) Specifically where in draft-fuji

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

>So, ISPs not doing reverse DNS for IPv6, like my current ISP, are making it >impossible to use your own mail server to deliver mail over IPv6. I think >they are doing a serious disservice to the open internet. Aw, c'mon. This argument was over a decade ago. If your ISP is like most other ISPs, r

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

>Disclaimer: Personally I think that the whole notion of reverse IP is >ridiculous, especially in IPv6. I proposed that we skip the whole >notion in IPv6, possibly providing some alternate, non-DNS, method to >get hostname from IPv6 addresses for the rare case where that is useful. My problem with

Re: [DNSOP] draft-song-dns-wireformat-http

Responding to only one part: > >- Note that choosing POST (not GET) as the request method for DNS > > >wire-format over HTTP is mainly based on two reasons. One is that > > >the protocol is designed using HTTP as a tunnel-like technology > > >carrying data from one side to another

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root-02.txt

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 04:31:15PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote a message of 49 lines which said: > I think I said this in person but I don't know if I ever wrote it > down. You did :-) > If the proposal does go forward (I really have no feeling whether it > is useful or not), then perhaps this c

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root-02.txt

Stephane, At 2016-04-29 15:57:27 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > No objection from the AS112 operators was received. Now, what do you > think of this draft? Should we continue or is it a bad idea (or a good > one, but hopeless?) I think I said this in person but I don't know if I ever wrote

[DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root-02.txt

No objection from the AS112 operators was received. Now, what do you think of this draft? Should we continue or is it a bad idea (or a good one, but hopeless?) --- Begin Message --- A new version of I-D, draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Stephane Bortzmeyer and

Re: [DNSOP] draft-song-dns-wireformat-http

Julian, Thanks for the feedback! Comments below... On 2016-04-28 20:12:52+0200 (Thursday) Julian Reschke wrote: > below some feedback... > > >One of alternative way of DNS described in that document is to > > s/of// Thanks, rephrased slightly. > >transport DNS binary data inside

Re: [DNSOP] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-00.txt

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: > > > On 29/04/2016 02:01, Jiankang Yao wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > We submit a draft about "A DNS Query including A Main Question > > with Accompanying Questions". > > > >Any comments are welcome. > > I am unconvinced that the abi

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

In your letter dated Fri, 29 Apr 2016 13:33:29 +0100 you wrote: >"needed" is rather a strong word historically reverse DNS was a de >facto requirement for access to some anonymous FTP servers (a use case >that is now rather long in the tooth) and it was seized on by mail >systems that were tryi

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

In your letter dated Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:26:27 +0200 you wrote: >I see two simple solutions for that. You mention one (ip6.arpa DNS >delegation), since, as you said, people who want to manage a mail >server probably can manage a DNS zone. > >There is another one, apparently not mentioned by the dra

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In message , Philip Homburg writes >In your letter dated Fri, 29 Apr 2016 13:54:44 +0200 you wrote: > >>Having said all of that, I don't see any strong requirement that this >>document provide motivation for reverse DNS solutions for IPv6. People >>a

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:13:08PM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote a message of 40 lines which said: > In fact, some really big mail providers require reverse DNS. I know. > So, ISPs not doing reverse DNS for IPv6, like my current ISP, are > making it impossible to use your own mail server to de

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:54:44PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote a message of 66 lines which said: > Having said all of that, I don't see any strong requirement that > this document provide motivation for reverse DNS solutions for > IPv6. People ask about the problem, and want solutions, and it woul

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

In your letter dated Fri, 29 Apr 2016 13:54:44 +0200 you wrote: >Disclaimer: Personally I think that the whole notion of reverse IP is >ridiculous, especially in IPv6. I proposed that we skip the whole >notion in IPv6, possibly providing some alternate, non-DNS, method to >get hostname from IPv6 ad

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

Stephane, At 2016-04-29 10:58:50 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 04:50:42PM -0400, > Tim Wicinski wrote > a message of 24 lines which said: > > > This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns > > Summary: I think it must *not* be publi

Re: [DNSOP] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-00.txt

On 29/04/2016 02:01, Jiankang Yao wrote: > Dear all, > > We submit a draft about "A DNS Query including A Main Question > with Accompanying Questions". > >Any comments are welcome. I am unconvinced that the ability to specify multiple QNAMEs offers any benefits and can't think

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 04:50:42PM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote a message of 24 lines which said: > This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns Summary: I think it must *not* be published as it is. The biggest problem is that it fails to explain why it is necessary t

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption for draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse

Shane, On 04/28/2016 10:28 PM, Shane Kerr wrote: > Matthijs, > > At 2016-04-26 10:11:13 +0200 > Matthijs Mekking wrote: > >> Late to the party, but FWIW: I also support adoption and am willing to >> discuss and review this work. >> >> Some comments: >> >> - Section 4.1 relaxes the restriction f