Re: [DNSOP] an editorial review of draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-13

Paul, thanks for your expedite response to my review comments. Please see a few inline follow-up remarks below. I have deleted all parts that don't need further elaboration. >> (1) Section 1 >> >> (1.1) 1st paragraph >> >> [...] > >> b) In a few places, the draft uses very terse forms of preci

[DNSOP] an editorial review of draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-13

It has been pointed out that the DNS Referral Response Size Issues I-D should not be left going to final expiry, and I have performed a new review of the last version, draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-13. I only found a small number of remaining editorial nits -- either formerly overlooked or newly intro

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

Matthijs, again thanks for your quick and detailed response and action. A few selected follow-up remark can be found inline below. On 11 Apr 2012 15:48:26 +0200, Matthijs Mekking wrote: > On 04/05/2012 12:48 AM, Alfred Hönes wrote: >> Here we go with part (B); if deemed necessar

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

Matthijs, thanks for dealing with my comments so expeditiously. (This extends to the other review comments as well.) Please see a few follow-up remarks inline below. On 11 Apr 2012 15:47:33 +0200, Matthijs Mekking wrote: > Hi, > > On 04/05/2012 12:41 AM, Alfred Hönes wrote: >&g

[DNSOP] two remarks on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-02

rfc4641bis document, where the life-cycle of DNSSEC-related RRs during such rollover is depicted, for which the key-timing I-D provides the timing details. Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- +++ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes

[DNSOP] a review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework-06

Hello, in my attempt to catch up with DNS related work in the IETF, I now also have reviewed the most recent version of the DNSSEC DPS draft, draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework-06. I did not find any serious issues or inconsistencies in the memo, and in general, it looks almost ready for brin

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

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)

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] Batch Multiple Query Packet

ent messages on multi-qtypes : http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg12398.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg12403.html Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- +++ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes

[DNSOP] A quick review of draft-cheshire-dnsext-special-names-02

f forwarded message To see the full review, please refer to the copy archived in the DNSEXT list archive: <http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg12376.html> Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- +++ | T

Re: [DNSOP] End of Life Notice for ITAR / State of ARPA.

It is now going to be two weeks since the IANA ITAR has been factually decommissioned, but still the last entry that has been removed from the ITAR, the DS record for the ARPA. zone, has not been placed into the root zone -- as confirmed by today's TLD DNSSEC Report:

Re: [DNSOP] draft-liman-tld-names-04

Folks, Widespread diverse restrictions in devices/implementations/applications with an expected residual lifetime in the order of a another decade _are_ technical restrictions, not policy. All work on DNS I have followed in the recent years always was under the umbrella of conserving compatibilit

[DNSOP] draft-jabley-dnssec-trust-anchor-00 -- a quick review

itable part of the draft. If my recommendation in item (2c) above is followed, this is accomplished and the paragraph here can be dropped. Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- +++ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.

[DNSOP] New Version Notification - draft-gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify-01.txt (fwd)

protocols. This document clarifies RFC 2782 regarding the formation and use of the Service Prefix in the owner name of SRV records, based on the unified IANA registry for "Service Names and Transport Protocol Port Numbers". Kind regards, Al

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-12.txt

I see my previous concerns fully addressed by the -12. Thanks Joe for the much better replacement text! (Admittedly, I've been too conservative, in an attempt to preserve as much of the previous language in that paragraph as possible.) So this should now actually be fodder for the IESG to digest,

[DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones and the former IP6.INT.

Folks, skimming over your most recent "Locally-served DNS Zones I-D", draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-11, I got stuck in section 5. The 4th paragraph of that section in the draft says: | This document also ignores IP6.INT. IP6.INT has been wound up with | only legacy resolvers now generat

[DNSOP] DNS trickery and RFC 5841 -- was: Re: Misguided IPv4-IPv6 DNS trickery

[[ Apologies for cross-posting; this turns into scope of DNSEXT ... ]] Since most DNS queries are carried over UDP and hence cannot make use of RFC 5841, I suggest that we standardize an equivalent EDNS option, preferably with the same (inofficial) option number of 25. Then, BIG content providers

Re: [DNSOP] draft on newzone_notify

> I do think that it belongs in dnsext rather than dnsop - did you > decide to move based on feedback from the working group chairs? Shane, at least _my_ argument was an encouragement to consider whether (or not) the underlying problem could/should be better addressed under the umbrella of the na

Re: [DNSOP] AS112 and IPv6

At Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:27:20 -0500 (EST), William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote: > ... > > Given that the other two drafts on AS112 are already along the path > to getting considered beyond the WGLC, would it be prudent to > generate a third draft specific to these issues? Nicely said. This indeed aga

Re: [DNSOP] automatic update of DS records

To avoid further confusion on who said ... ... The last message was from Jaap Akkerhuis, who said: > > Oops, apparently Alfred said so. But who sais what is irrelevat on the > discussion. The oint I was making is that there should not be a fixed > aministrative model. > > jaap However, I di

Re: [DNSOP] automatic update of DS records

> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:28:36AM +0100, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: >> >> Antoin says: >> So there's one more logical entity involved; most likely this way: >> >> jaap >> ___ > > did i miss something? Antoin sez that where? That's bee

Re: [DNSOP] automatic update of DS records

At Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:53:53 +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote: > The path is usualy even more complicated. > I've identified this stream of contractual relationships in a > registration process: > > registry-registrar-reseller-registrant-dns_operator > > (some roles may be duplicated or absent, some

Re: [DNSOP] [dnsext] Re: Priming query transport selection

Danny Mayer wrote, in a response sent to me, referring to Olafur Gudmundsson's text proposal quoted in my posting on Jan 13: >>> Proposed replacement text: >>> >>> |2.1. Parameters of a Priming Query >>> | >>> | A priming query MUST use a QNAME of "." and a QTYPE of NS, QCLASS >>> | of IN, with

Re: [DNSOP] Priming query transport selection

I apologize for cross-posting due to topical overlap. Please confine follow-up messages to the appropriate list. In the message to DNSOP regarding draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-02 archived at , Olafur Gudmundsson scratched at

Re: [DNSOP] what i said at the mic (re: dnssec-key-timing) (fwd)

Sorry, forgot to copy the list ... - Forwarded message - > From: Alfred Hönes > To: joh...@autonomica.se, je...@isc.org > Message-Id: <200911161039.laa16...@tr-sys.de> > Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:39:09 +0100 (MEZ) > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] what i said at the mic (

[DNSOP] draft-jabley-reverse-servers-00

I have studied the draft proposing a new 'regular' naming scheme for the IN-ADDR.ARPA. and IP6.ARPA. zone, draft-jabley-reverse-servers-00 , and fully support this proposal. Nits I found in the draft: (1) Abstract | ... These zones contain data which facilitates reverse ma

Re: [DNSOP] draft-koch-dns-unsolicited-queries-03

sibling authorities. Variant 2 (Sink delegations) also will trigger more traffic, however directed to blackholes; the resulting degree of spilled network resources depends on the addresses chosen and the routing system. Should certain "Special Purpose" IP addresses be used for this purpose?

Re: [DNSOP] [dnsext] Computerworld apparently has changed DNS protocol

Alfred. P.S.: Disclosing that the writer was female seemed politically incorrect to me, so I purposely avoided this detail. > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 07:58:41PM +0100, Alfred Hönes wrote: >> Interesting News! >> >> There must be a hidden trick to introduce DNS Jumb

[DNSOP] Computerworld apparently has changed DNS protocol

Interesting News! There must be a hidden trick to introduce DNS Jumbograms we just forgot to mention In a press article [1] entitled "Root zone changes may shake up Net in Africa", Computerworld wrote: | From January 2010, ICANN will implement DNSSEC -- using a technique | also known a

[DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-02

ses of all root name servers. This can easily be achieved by making all root name servers authoritative for the zone containing the servers' names. MfG/Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- ++--

Re: [DNSOP] [dnsext] Re: DNAME-bis issues (was: new draft about idn tld variant implementation)

Can someone please propose it? Given the >> emergence of this issue, the document is clearly not ready for >> advancement, and it needs to be fixed before we send it on. > > We really need Alfred Hönes to comment on this, as he was the one who > acquired the wrong impressi

Re: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variants implementation

On Oct 16 2009, Chris Thompson wrote: > On Oct 16 2009, Alfred Hönes wrote: > >> Another point: >> >> The draft is speaking abut "DNAME _in_ the root". >> >> According to my surficial knowledge, DNAME RRs 'live' >> at the _apex_ of the

Re: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variants implementation

would not necessarily have to do that with the original root servers; they also could deploy additional servers for this purpose and delegate the variant TLDs to these servers. Even if the variant zones were to be served by the original root servers, there would have to be d

[DNSOP] draft-yao-dnsop-idntld-implementation-00 and DNAME

've never heard complaints from ENUM folks about issues with DNAME -- or did I miss smething? Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- +++ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12

Re: [DNSOP] draft-iab-idn-encoding-00

[[ Sorry for cross-posting. ]] All, in July the IAB has posted an I-D on "IAB Thoughts on Encodings for Internationalized Domain Names", draft-iab-idn-encoding-00, and solicited feedback. That draft is closely related to the DNS related WGs as well. After very quickly skimming over that memo, i

Re: [DNSOP] [dnsext] Why ZSK rollover is a Bad Idea

I already have posted a response to the original analysis by EKR, which has much overlap with the comments sent to this list by Olaf. Please see the original URL for the thread there, including my reasoning about operational impact and human factors: http://www.educatedguesswork.org/2009/10/on_th

[DNSOP] latest revisions of AS112 drafts -- editorials

I'd like to mention the remaining few minor editorials I found still present in the re-posted AS112 drafts. [[ No new draft version(s) needed; that can be fixed by the RFC-Editor or during AUTH48 ! ]] a) First paragraph of 'Abstract' of both drafts: Please use common spelling in the prose:

Re: [DNSOP] "MX 0 ." standard way of saying "we don't do email" ?

en long discussions on MX to {A|} fallback, and so I expect that the idea most likely will not be received with much enthusiasm ... Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- +++ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math.

[DNSOP] draft-morris-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-00

y find it convenient/ ^^^ ^^ (6) Section 3.1, 'Event 4' Please add the missing trailing period. (7) Section 4, implication #2 s/longer that the key lifetime/longer than the key lifetime/ ^ ^

[DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-trust-anchor-03

Generally: Thumbs up for this version! However, one legacy nit has been left untouched. In Section 5, 2nd para: s/number trust anchors/number of trust anchors/! ^ (No new draft version needed, wait for opportunity to fix!) Kind regards, Alfred

Re: [DNSOP] Updates to AS 112 WG drafts -- solicitation for progress

outcome can be discussed at IETF, if necessary. The WG charter has milestones for forwarding to the IESG of all these documents by September 2007 (!). The WG would gradually loose its credibility if it proves continued inability to show progress on chartered work items. Kind regards,

[DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-mcgrew-tss-02 (fwd)

This tools might be of interest for implementors of DNSSEC, e.g. the folks wanting to distibute control over the future Root Zone primary Key Signing Keys between the RIRs and ICANN/IANA. The new version should hopefully be ready for implementation. - Forwarded message from IETF I-D Submissi

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-07

> Roy Arends wrote: >> On Feb 25, 2009, at 9:44 PM, Alfred Hönes wrote: >> >>> Question to the WG : >>> -- >>> >>> Are there any convincing reasons for *not* advancing that draft >>> in a reasonable timeframe now? >>

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-name-server-management-reqs-02

well. Thus, I suggest that the chairs now undertake the appropriate steps to go ahead quickly with this document as well ! Otherwise, if you have objections, please speak up, indicate precisely your concerns and propose alternate text ! Kind regards, Alfred Hönes

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-07

or this draft to IESG for BCP once was set at September 2007. Similarly, the milestones for the AS112 docs (mentioned above) to IESG (for Informational / FYI, i.e. Informational as well) were set to December/September 2007, respectively. All that had be

Re: [DNSOP] SRV Protocol Label Registry

easons for binding to a fixed server port. > Regards, > -sm > ___ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP at ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop Best regards, Alfred Hönes. -- ++-

[DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-01

Hello Peter and Matt, eventually, I found the time to take a closer look at the latest version of your Resolver Priming I-D, draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-01, and again would like to submit a few comments, most of which are editorial in nature. Items (4) and (7) ff. should be of interest

Re: [DNSOP] draft-hardaker-dnsops-name-server-management-reqs Mail delivery problems

I wanted to send comments on draft-hardaker-dnsops-name-server-management-reqs-01 in private communications to the author, but the message has been bounced after 3 days of persistent errors: >>> DATA 451 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Unexpected close while awaiting SMTP reply from nutshell.