Re: [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts

2020-02-27 Thread Tim Wicinski
"ANAME and its proprietary friends try to solve the issue it within the DNS" Matthijs sums this wonderfully. As a Chair, I would say ANAME is using DNS to solve a DNS problem. I felt Tony did an admirable job trying to simplify the current draft, but it does seem like it's still too much. The cur

Re: [DNSOP] [External] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts

2020-02-27 Thread Andrew M. Hettinger
"DNSOP" wrote on 02/27/2020 11:12:50: > From: "Matthijs Mekking" > To: dnsop@ietf.org > Date: 02/27/2020 11:13 > Subject: Re: [External] [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts > Sent by: "DNSOP" > > > > On 2/26/20 11:28 PM, Andrew M. Hettinger wrote: > > "DNSOP" wrote on 02/26/

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-zone-digest-04.txt

2020-02-27 Thread Michael StJohns
On 2/27/2020 12:46 PM, Wessels, Duane wrote: On Feb 24, 2020, at 7:32 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: An improvement, but still: Thanks Mike. 1.3 - general - add something like "Specifically, ZONEMD covers the integrity of records that are not otherwise covered by DNSSEC". Sorry, I don't quit

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-zone-digest-04.txt

2020-02-27 Thread Wessels, Duane
> On Feb 24, 2020, at 7:32 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > An improvement, but still: Thanks Mike. > > 1.3 - general - add something like "Specifically, ZONEMD covers the > integrity of records that are not otherwise covered by > DNSSEC". Sorry, I don't quite follow this. There is currentl

Re: [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts

2020-02-27 Thread Matthijs Mekking
On 2/26/20 11:28 PM, Andrew M. Hettinger wrote: > "DNSOP" wrote on 02/26/2020 08:34:55: > >> From: "Vladimír Čunát" >> To: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" >> Cc: "Andrew M. Hettinger" >> Date: 02/26/2020 08:35 >> Subject: Re:  [External]  [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc > drafts >> Sent by:

[DNSOP] commenting draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-01

2020-02-27 Thread Daniel Migault
Hi, I read draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-01. Please find find some comments (with my questions) below I had while reading linearly the document. I hope this will help. Yours, Daniel section 1.1 _8765._baz.api.example.com. 7200 IN SVCB 0 svc4-baz.example.net. In my opinion, the mechanism tha

Re: [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts

2020-02-27 Thread Anthony Eden
My intention with the original draft I wrote https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dnsop-eden-alias-rr-type-00 was to provide just the basics. If anyone is interested we can always try to resuscitate that draft at some point. -Anthony On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:03 AM Tony Finch wrote: > Erik Nygren

Re: [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts

2020-02-27 Thread Tony Finch
Erik Nygren wrote: > I don't follow how this works for the non-trivial static case. > You have two authoritative parties, one for the authoritative zone > and one authoritative for the ANAME target. > Both are operated by different entities. > > The logic and policy for the ANAME target (involvin

Re: [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts

2020-02-27 Thread Vladimír Čunát
On 2/27/20 4:51 AM, Lanlan Pan wrote: > [...] > Just configure ANAME in the zonefile,  authortitative return response > is CNAME, no ANAME. > If enable DNSSEC, this will cause some dynamic signature > calculation（ECDSA will be better). I would (generally) NOT recommend sending CNAME in answer in c

Re: [DNSOP] status of the aname and svcb/httpsvc drafts

2020-02-27 Thread Vladimír Čunát
On 2/26/20 11:28 PM, Andrew M. Hettinger wrote: > Is there actually a commitment from browser makers to implement it? > [...] > But let's be clear, the biggest group that we need buy-in from are the > chromium devs. Without them, this isn't worth the bits we've sent down > the wire discussing it.