[DNSOP] fwd: New Version Notification for draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-03.txt

ETF Secretariat - End forwarded message ----- -- Peter Koch | | p...@denic.de DENIC eG| | +49 69 27235-0 Kaiserstra�e 75-77 | | 60329 Frankfurt am Main |

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 12:04:22AM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote: > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption > by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. I do not support accepting the draft (or the proposal it carries) as a work item. Other than

[DNSOP] a change for the dnsop wg

Dear DNSOP WG, this is interesting times for the DNS, in operations and elsewhere. We have recently seen increased interest in DNS and privacy/confidentiality as well as in the topic of "new TLDs", scratching the boundaries between ICANN and the IETF, again. There are lots of new uses of the DNS

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption of as a WG work item?

Dear WG, > Please respond by the end of next week, so that we could ask future > editors to submit a renamed -00 version by Monday, Feb 18. thanks to all who responded and especially to those three volunteer reviewers. However, we've not met the 5 reviewer threshold, so your chairs agreed the WG

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption of as a WG work item?

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:34:09PM -0500, Warren Kumari wrote: > The last day for submission of a -00 is Feb18th, but the last day for > adoption was the 11th. > So, if this is adopted, the authors can resubmit with a new name, but it > approved till the cycle restarts? > > ? 2013-02-11 (

[DNSOP] DNSOP slot scheduled for Orlando

Dear WG, we have been assigned a one hour slot, as requested, for Orlando. Thursday afternoon, 1740-1840: Boca 1 SEC oauthWeb Authorization Protocol Caribbean 6 RTG isis IS-IS for IP Internets Caribbean 1 INT dhc Dynamic Host

[DNSOP] Adoption of as a WG work item?

Dear WG, the topic of AS112 has been addresses in the DNSOP WG resulting in RFCs 6304 and 6305 and is also related to 'local zones' as described in RFC 6303. The question of extending AS112 service to IPv6 (as in "transport") as well as the maintainability of the list of zones served by AS112 sys

[DNSOP] DNSOP Meeting in Orlando/IETF86

Dear WG, your chairs have requested a one hour slot for the Orlando meeting. We have a set of things to discuss, which we will present in the draft agenda soon, but we would also like to solicit suggestions for agenda items from you. Please direct your ideas to . -Stephen & Peter

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-03.txt until 2012-09-14

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 04:17:20PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > Sorry, late again, but I have read through the draft and I did not find thanks, Tony, no worries about the delay. I'm currently evaluating the responses and will come back the week after next week. -Peter (shepherding co-chair) __

[DNSOP] WGLC draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-03.txt until 2012-09-14

Dear DNSOP WG, this is to initiate a working group last call (WGLC) for "DNSSEC Key Timing Considerations" draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-03.txt The WGLC will last until Friday, 14 September 2012 ow

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing

Andrew, > In the archives since the meeting, I observe some comments at > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg09783.html. But > I do not observe the announcement of a WGLC. I am wondering when we > might expect that call. both chairs have taken advantage of the season at least

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-03.txt

John, all, On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:50:55PM +0100, John Dickinson wrote: > > Saying this does not count as a 'standby key' is confusing in the > > light that the term key is used rather loosely. Also this text > > insinuates that it is somehow worse than having a "Double-Signature > > standby k

[DNSOP] Publication requested for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-12.txt

it strives to replace. Various TLD and other zones' DNSSEC practices are in line with, or within the boundaries of this draft, that therefore reflects the collective wisdom of those active operators who chose to contribute. The draft received significant review within the WG as well a

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-12.txt

Dear WG, > Title : DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2 > Author(s) : Olaf M. Kolkman > W. (Matthijs) Mekking > SIDN Labs > Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-12.txt this version -12 is the result

[DNSOP] Draft DNSOP WG Agenda for IETF 84 Vancouver

IETF 84, Vancouver Location: Hyatt Regency Vancouver, Georgia B Date: Thursday, 02 August 2012 Time: 17:30 - 18:30 (UTC-7)// atoca, avtext, behave, bmwg, iri, lwig, trill Chairs:Peter Koch Stephen Morris > Jabber:xmpp:dn...@jabber.ietf.org

Re: [DNSOP] draft-wouters-dnsop-secure-update-use-cases-00

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:16:21PM +0300, Andreas Gustafsson wrote: > > I've changed it from lame delegation to broken delegation. > > I suggest simply dropping the sentence 'If they differ, it is > referred as a "Lame Delegation"' instead. I don't think Jim's while this discussion is refreshin

[DNSOP] Update on Vancouver

Dear WG, for the meeting in Vancouver we have asked for discussion to happen on the list to prepare for and substantiate a high bandwidth interaction on site. So far, the only document we have seen addressed is that on "Omniscient AS112 Servers". We are currently considering devoting meeting time

[DNSOP] Preliminary slot assignment for IETF 84

FYI, we have been assigned, as requested, a one hour slot for the DNSOP WG meeting in Vancouver. The agenda currently sees us on Thursday, 1730-1830: APP iri Internationalized Resource Identifiers INT lwig Light-Weigh

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-08.txt

John, all, > In particular, is there any good reason why validators should ever have their > TA configured in a non-RFC5011 state (i.e. using trusted-keys clause in BIND > or trust-anchor-file or trust-anchor clauses in Unbound)? thanks for your suggestion. The PROTO writeup for 4641bis is in

[DNSOP] NO meeting in Taipei [Re: Whether to meet at IETF83 in Taipei]

Dear WG, > the next IETF is approaching and your chairs need to decide whether > there is a need for face to face meeting in Taipei. We currently see > some discussion of new or evolving issues but none of the active documents > seem to have pressing open issues that would clearly benefit from >

[DNSOP] cross-wg/area review: draft-ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery-02.txt

You may have seen a similar request on the dnsext list: we're looking for reviewers for . If you are able and willing to devote some time and energy on a thorough review of this draft, especially the use of the DNS reverse tre

[DNSOP] Whether to meet at IETF83 in Taipei

Dear WG, the next IETF is approaching and your chairs need to decide whether there is a need for face to face meeting in Taipei. We currently see some discussion of new or evolving issues but none of the active documents seem to have pressing open issues that would clearly benefit from a meeting

[DNSOP] DNSOP future direction (agenda item 5 for Quebec)

Dear WG, With four, admittedly long lasting, drafts now published as RFCs and several others in or approaching WGLC, it is time to look at the remaining action items or milestones for the DNSOP WG. Your chairs would like to devote some time in Quebec to gauge interest in future work. We'd like to

[DNSOP] Final Draft Agenda for Quebec/IETF 81

DNS Operations (dnsop) Meeting: IETF 81, Quebec Location: Quebec City Convention Centre, 206A Date: Tuesday, 28 July 2011 Time: 13:00 - 15:00 (UTC-4)// alto, emu, netmod, paws, pcp, pim, rtcweb Chairs: Peter Koch Stephen Morris > Jabber:

[DNSOP] AS112/local zones documents published -- and next steps

Dear WG, with the recent advent of RFC 6303, Locally Served DNS Zones [BCP0163] RFC 6304, AS112 Nameserver Operations RFC 6305, I'm Being Attacked by PRISONER.IANA.ORG! I'd like to express thanks for the hard work to Mark, Joe, and William as the editors of these th

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP session scheduled for Quebec (IETF81)

Dear WG, > the DNSOP slot for Quebec has been (re-)scheduled to Tuesday, 1300 > . The main agenda is > still in flux, so the list of parallel sessions may change. this has now happened. While we otherwise maintained our slot assignment, netext w

[DNSOP] DNSOP session scheduled for Quebec (IETF81)

Dear WG, the DNSOP slot for Quebec has been (re-)scheduled to Tuesday, 1300 . The main agenda is still in flux, so the list of parallel sessions may change. We've been assigned a two hour slot, which is a bit longer than what we asked for. Please

[DNSOP] WGLC [2011-05-17]

Dear DNSOP WG, this is to initiate a working group last call (WGLC) on "DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2" Owing to the length of the document, the WGLC will last for four weeks instead of the usual two, and will therefore end on Tuesday, 17 May, 23:59 U

Re: [DNSOP] Publication Request (Informational) for

Stephane, thanks for the heads up. On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 10:12:13PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > This is a PROTO write up and Request for Publication as INFORMATIONAL for > > "AS112 Nameserver Operations", . > > Funny but, as reported on OARC's dns-operations, at this time, ARIN > na

[DNSOP] Publication Request (BCP) for

t Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Peter Koch is the document shepherd and believes that this document is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the doc

[DNSOP] Publication Request (Informational+FYI) for

cument? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Peter Koch is the document shepherd and believes that this document is ready for publication.

[DNSOP] Publication Request (Informational) for

d for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Peter Koch is the document shepherd and believes that this document is

[DNSOP] Today's final DNSOP agenda

/ dhc, fecframe, karp, mext, pce, pcp, sipcore Chairs:Peter Koch Stephen Morris > Jabber:xmpp:dn...@jabber.ietf.org WG URL:http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/ Agenda:http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/79/#dnsop Agenda:http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/agenda/

[DNSOP] Call for Contributions: Name Server Control -- Followup Work

Dear DNSOP WG, with draft-ietf-dnsop-name-server-management-reqs-04.txt now on its way to the IESG, it is time to look at future efforts. There was followup work proposed based on this draft that we had postponed until after the requirements document would have been finished. Also, there was a p

[DNSOP] Publication Request (Informational) for

e IESG for publication? Peter Koch is the shepherd for this document, has read the latest version and yes, I believe it is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about

[DNSOP] WGLC 2010-08-14: draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-04.txt

Dear DNSOP WG, as requested by the document editors, this message initiates a working group last call for > > Title : AS112 Nameserver Operations > > Author(s) : J. Abley, W. Maton > > Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-04.txt for publication as an Informati

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-04.txt

Joe, all, > The authors are of the opinion that this document is ready to be written up > and sent to the IESG. the chairs intend to send this version of the document to the AD/IESG for publication as an Informational RFC in the FYI subseries (see RFC 1150) by mid August, together with

[DNSOP] Final Agenda for Wed DNSOP Session

auth, hiprg, netmod, pwe3, urnbis Chairs:Peter Koch Stephen Morris Jabber:xmpp:dn...@jabber.ietf.org WG URL:http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/ Agenda:http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/agenda/dnsop.txt Material: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/78/mater

[DNSOP] DNSOP WG Draft Status Report

Dear DNSOP WG, this is to cover agenda item 2 on tomorrows agenda, giving a short summary of the status of the various wg documents. Please direct questions to us chairs or the WG list in general. -Peter and Stephen - I

[DNSOP] updated agenda for DNSOP on Tue

Dear WG, the agenda at has been updated to adjust timestamps and draft version numbers. Please read the three documents listed there, especially 4641bis, to the discussion of which we have devoted the majority of Tuesday's meeting time. Also,

[DNSOP] Meeting Slot Reassigned & Updated Agenda

, Maastricht Location: MECC Maastricht, "2.1 Colorado"" Date: Tuesday, 27 July 2010 Time: 09:00 - 11:30 (UTC+2)(// conex, dispatch, fedauth, hiprg, netmod, pwe3, urnbis Chairs:Peter Koch Stephen Morris Jabber:xmpp:dn...@jabber.ietf.org WG UR

[DNSOP] DNSOP Preliminary Session Slot Assignment, Draft Agenda and Agenda Item Solicitation

78, Maastricht Location: MECC Maastricht, "Berlin/Copenhagen" Date: Monday, 26 July 2010 Time: 09:00 - 11:30 (UTC+2)(// 6lowpan, apparea, behave, fedauth, idr, l2vpn, sipcore) Chairs:Peter Koch Stephen Morris Jabber:xmpp:dn...@jabber

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-13

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 02:19:57PM +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > "ANY TIME"?? ever? > > how about "... deletions from the registry will allow the domain > names to be resolved on the public Internet at some reasonable > time after removal from the regist

[DNSOP] Adoption of "DNSSEC Key Timing Considerations"

Dear WG, "DNSSEC Key Timing Considerations", draft-morris-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-02.txt, and its predecessors were presented to the working group in Anaheim the last time. There was discussion on the document itself as well as its relation to draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis. The authors asked for a

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-13

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 02:32:54PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > > Probably true, but not relevant to the discussion. The idea is to force > > imple > > menters to look at the registry so that they see *future* additions to it, > > ev > > en if they get there from reading this RFC-to-be. > > You

[DNSOP] Latest WG Meeting Agenda for today

, Anaheim Location: Anaheim Hilton, "California A" Date: Wednesday, 24 march 2010 Time: 13:00 - 15:00 (UTC-7)(// 6man, avt, hybi, krb-wg, p2prg, pwe3, tsvarea Chairs:Peter Koch Stephen Morris Jabber:xmpp:dn...@jabber.ietf.org WG URL:ht

[DNSOP] DNSOP Draft Status and Work Plan

Dear WG, Stephen and myself have worked together to review the status of the various WG documents and to distribute shepherding responsibilities. This will allow us to clear the backlog. Instead of going through these in the WG meeting later today, we'd like to present the list here, so it is also

[DNSOP] tone of the discussion [Re: Hues]

Dear WG, > any other little questions bothering you that we might help with? may I ask everybody to remain calm and on topic on this list and to neither engage into personal attacks nor to misinterpret any such attack by others, perceived or real, as an invitation to a race towards low stan

Re: [DNSOP] IETF 76 DNSOP WG Minutes

Dear WG, > please find below the minutes of our Hiroshima meeting. Many thanks to John > for timely delivery and also to Wolfgang for jabber scribing. the minutes are now also available in the IETF 76 proccedings:

[DNSOP] IETF 76 DNSOP WG Minutes

ob Austein Peter Koch Minutes: John Schnizlein Jabber:xmpp:dn...@jabber.ietf.org J-Scribe: Wolfgang Nagele J-Script: http://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/dnsop/2009-11-11.txt Audio: ftp://videolab.uoregon.edu/pub/videolab/video/ietf76/ietf76-ch8-wed-afnoon.mp3 [~59MB]

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption of

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 07:07:13AM +0100, $me wrote: [adoption of ...] > DNSSEC Signing Policy & Practice Statement Framework > > > This mail is to confirm the adoption on the WG list. Unless we hear > disagreement

[DNSOP] Adoption of

Dear WG, during the session on Wednesday, the authors of DNSSEC Signing Policy & Practice Statement Framework asked for the adoption of the draft as a working group item. The sense of the room was in favour o

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-02

Jinmei, > Basically, I think this document is useful and I support it to be > (eventually) published. thanks for your review. This (and also Afred's helpful comments) will be addressed in an updated version. But let me respond one by one. > - Section 2.2 > >A resolver SHOULD NOT originate

[DNSOP] Preliminary meeting slot assignment for IETF76

Dear WG, the preliminary agenda shows a DNSOP slot on Wednesday afternoon: 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Acacia 1 INT aplusp Address Plus Port BOF Acacia 2 INT netext Network-Based Mobility Extensions WG Orchid 1

Re: [DNSOP] Stockholm meeting slot assignment CHANGED

On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 09:34:58AM +0200, Matthijs Mekking wrote: > According to the behave ML, they are planning to cover that DNS topic > indeed on the monday: thanks for pointing this out, it's indeed an important overlap. We're coordinating with the behave chairs to get this resolved, which

[DNSOP] Stockholm meeting slot assignment CHANGED

Dear WG, the DNSOP WG meeting in Stockholm has been moved from Friday morning to Monday morning, 0900-1130 (// apparea, behave, mip4, mpls, pcn, syslog, xmpp). Please let Rob/$me know whether this generates a serious conflict, so we can at least try to get the meeting re-rescheduled. The agenda i

Re: [DNSOP] Problems with DS change in registry/registrar environment

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:43:35PM +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> 4 Domain is transferred to new registrar > >> 5 New Domain Operator is adding new DS to the old DS set > >> 6 New Domain Operator is adding new NS > > > >Don't get you here. Where does he do this? > > Add the new NS to the

Re: [DNSOP] [dnssec-deployment] Problems with DS change in registry/registrar environment

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 08:36:47AM +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote: > [On request from Olaf, also dnsop is included:ed] The discussion and input is very wolcome in DNSOP. For reasons related to "Note Well" we'll not be able to routinely approve cross postings.

[DNSOP] meeting slot assignment for Stockholm

Dear WG, the draft IETF 75 agenda, available from as a PDF, shows dnsop as scheduled on Friday morning 0900-1130. Conflicts in the same slot: dhc, dtnrg, ippm, mip4, mpls, rrg, sipcore As always, this is subject to change. Please let Rob and me know re

[DNSOP] IETF74 DNSOP WG meeting minutes

ncisco, Continental 4 Date: Tuesday, 24 March 2009 Time: 15:20 - 17:00 (UTC-8) Chairs:Rob Austein Peter Koch Minutes: John Schnizlein Jabber:xmpp:dn...@jabber.ietf.org J-Scribe: Bruce Campbell, Benno Overeinder J-Script: http://jabber.ietf.org/logs/dnsop/2009

Re: [DNSOP] HSMs was Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-01.txt

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 09:50:53PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > When we looked at the problem of disgruntled or bribed employees, HSM > (or the equivalent) was the only logical answer. Otherwise the private > key can be copied off, probably without your knowledge, by trusted staff. > > Not necessar

[DNSOP] WGLC: DNSSEC Trust Anchor Configuration and Maintenance

this is to initiate a working group last call on "DNSSEC Trust Anchor Configuration and Maintenance" draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-trust-anchor-03.txt ending Friday, 2009-05-08, 23:59 UTC. The tools site gives easy access to diffs and such under

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

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:53:46AM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote: > But the draft really isn't about DNS. It's about SMTP. I'd say this is not either/or, it's the use of DNS in another protocol. It has to be addressed in a cross-wg or cross-area effort. Developing a DNS view here is fine. /* hat of

[DNSOP] Final agenda for today's DNSOP meeting

WG:DNS Operations (dnsop) Meeting: IETF 74, Minneapolis Location: Hilton San Francisco, Continental 4 Date: Tuesday, 24 March 2009 Time: 15:20 - 17:00 (UTC-8)(// ancp, keyprov, krb-wg, mext, mmox, rtgarea, speermint Chairs:Rob Austein

[DNSOP] /adm/ Re: WGLC: Requirements for Management of Name Servers for the DNS

On 18.03.2009, at 17:37, TSG wrote: > >Peter - I notice that the standards don't say anything about the > >EU's Data Integrity Directive which in fact will effect the On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:03:58AM +0100, Ralf Weber wrote: > I'm not sure where you get the numbers, but the EU's population

[DNSOP] WGLC: Requirements for Management of Name Servers for the DNS

Dear WG, this is to initiate a working group last call on "Requirements for Management of Name Servers for the DNS" draft-ietf-dnsop-name-server-management-reqs-02.txt ending Friday, 2009-04-10, 23:59 UTC. The tools site gives easy access to diffs and such under

Re: [DNSOP] draft-liman-tld-names-00.txt

SM wrote: > The topic discussed in draft-liman-tld-names-00 has two angles, the > application angle and the DNS angle. The "requirements" can be > different depending on which angle we are looking at. From Section > 11 of RFC 2181: I'd like to support this distinction and would suggest we

[DNSOP] Call for agenda items for San Francisco/IETF 74

Dear WG, the agenda for San Francisco gives us a 100 minute slot on Tuesday afternoon: Date: Tuesday, 25 March 2009 Time: 15:20 - 17:00 (UTC-8) //mmox, ancp, mext, speermint, rtgarea, keyprov, krb-wg Please let Rob and me know of any items you'd like to see on the agenda. Also, please note t

[DNSOP] FWD: [Plenary DNSSEC Plenary Experiment for IETF 74]

>From the main IETF discussion list. The WG participants might have some ideas if and how to frame an experiment like this. Please read the archive, there have been some interesting follow ups. -Peter - Forwarded message from Russ Housley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Russ Housley <[EMAIL

[DNSOP] Latest Agenda for DNSOP Meeting

(dnsop) Meeting: IETF 73, Minneapolis Location: Hilton Minneapolis, Minneapolis, US; Salon E Date: Wednesday, 19 November 2008 Time: 13:00 - 15:00 (UTC-6)(//csi, p2psip, mpls, manet, nea, tsvarea, vcarddav Chairs:Rob Austein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[DNSOP] /admin/ Re: draft-dickinson-dnsop-nameserver-control-00

Todd, Florian, All, On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 02:25:21PM -0700, TS Glassey wrote: > No Florian - the requirement is created by the IETF's continued violation > of the IPR space that the patent creates period. Once people stop filing > infringing works with the IETF and violating my IP Rights then

[DNSOP] dnsop meeting at IETF73

Dear WG, the tentative agenda for Minnepolis gives us a two-hour slot on Wednesday: Date: Wednesday, 19 November 2008 Time: 13:00 - 15:00 (UTC-6) //csi, iccrg, p2psip, mpls, manet, nea, tsvarea Please let Rob and me know of any items you'd like to see on the agenda, an early version of which h

[DNSOP] Revocation of posting rights to DNSOP WG list for Dean Anderson

n met by several of Mr Anderson's recent postings. The WG chairs have also been offered an order from the responsible AD. Mr Anderson has been sent a similar note. We would like to ask the WG to send any clarifying questions to the WG chairs off-list only.

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsop-reflectors-are-evil-06.txt

for publishing the draft "as is", nobody expressed opposition. It is noted that Mr Anderson maintained his dissenting view. I therefore declare WG consensus on the publication of draft-ietf-dnsop-reflectors-are-evil-06.txt "as is"(*). -Peter Koch [wg co-chair and document s

[DNSOP] FWD: Nomcom call for candidates

- Forwarded message from NomCom Chair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - The 2008-9 IETF Nominating Committee needs your help. We have started getting candidates. If we are going to do our job in time, we have only 3 more weeks to get enough candidates to have a reasonable pool for all the jobs. At the

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsop-reflectors-are-evil-06.txt

On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 10:45:02AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Title : Preventing Use of Recursive Nameservers in Reflector > Attacks > Author(s) : J. Damas, F. Neves > Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-reflectors-are-evil-06.txt > Pages :

[DNSOP] FWD: IETF Mailing List Issue

For those of you not subscribed to the main ietf list(s), here's a note from the secretariat regarding a mishap with the IETF mail service. If you don't find your message in the DNSOP archive at you may have to resend your me

[DNSOP] DRAFT DNSOP Minutes for IETF72

--- WG:DNS Operations (dnsop) Meeting: IETF 72, Dublin Location: Citywest Hotel, Saggart, Co Dublin, IE; "Ballroom 1" Date: Tuesday, 29 July 2008 Time: 13:00 - 15:00 (UTC+1) Chairs:Rob Austein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Peter Koch <

[DNSOP] signed root on a separate infrastructure [Re: A different question]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 11:53:02AM -0700, David Conrad wrote: > If you ensure the namespace and authorities are identical between the > two infrastructures, there are no technical issues (at least that I've > heard about). {diving into a detail - the ARPA zone shares its NS RRSet with the roo

[DNSOP] EDNS0, the DO bit and acceptance of responses [Re: A different question]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 04:06:05PM -0700, David Conrad wrote: > - if the advertised EDNS0 buffer size is not large enough, it will > trigger truncation and, as a result, an increase in the number of TCP > sessions going to the root. assumed that it's reasonable to focus on referrals and NXDOM

Re: [DNSOP] deprecating dangerous bit patterns and non-TC non-AXFR

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 03:27:15PM +, Paul Vixie wrote: > i answered this on namedroppers, where the thread actually belongs. at the risk of splitting hairs, the three different proposals did not all strive to change the protocol. Also, this started out from the observation that ANY queries m

Re: [DNSOP] A different question (was Re: Kaminsky on djbdns bugs (fwd))

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:29:13AM -0700, David Conrad wrote: > However, because of DO, folks who don't configure their resolvers to > do DNSSEC shouldn't ever see any DNSSEC goop. so, one question is whether the "DO" bit actually signals understanding of the correct version of DNSSEC and what

[DNSOP] Adoption of

Dear DNSOP WG, just to let everybody know: given that was a design team deliverable and there was considerable support during the DNSOP meeting today, this draft is now an accepted deliverable as a starting point for future work and therefore adopted as a working group document. We'll figure out

[DNSOP] Final agenda for DNSOP meeting at IETF 72

Rob Austein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Peter Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jabber:xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] WG URL:http://www.dnsop.org Material: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meetin

[DNSOP] FWD: [[Int-area] IPv4 and IPv6 Co-existence discussions in Dublin]

d/draft-bagnulo-behave-nat64 [4] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/slides/v6ops-5/sld1.htm [5] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-xli-behave-ivi ___ Int-area mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-are

[DNSOP] Agenda Item Solicitation & Cutoff Dates for Dublin

Dear WG, it's roughly four weeks until we meet in Dublin. The preliminary schedule says we have a two-hour slot on Tuesday after lunch (1300-1500). A basic agenda outline is available at Please send agenda item suggestions to Rob a

Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List

Gervase, first I'd like to thank Yngve for providing the pointer and you for following his advice. > I am not particularly interested in a long discussion about whether we > need this data. Please be assured that we need it. I am, on the other > hand, open to suggestions about better ways to obta

[DNSOP] IETF 71 Minutes uploaded

ROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Peter Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Minutes: Ed Lewis Jabber:xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] J-Scribe: Antoin Verschuren, Suzanne Woolf J-Script: http://jabber.ietf.org/logs/dnsop/2008-03-11.txt Audio: http://lime

Re: [DNSOP] Localhost entries in zones

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 12:19:27PM +0200, Antoin Verschuren wrote: > http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2008/Jan/0270.html > that states that localhost entries in zones should be discouraged. if I follow this correctly, the risk is for "localhost.example.org" to enable anyone on the same host as the vic

Re: [DNSOP] AS112 for TLDs

On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 03:51:16PM -0700, John L. Crain wrote: > I don't think the disease is life threatening. I keep hearing about the > "Problem" of bogus queries to the root. It is certainly messy and ugly but > from my perspective as an operator it is more of irritant than anything else. >

Re: [DNSOP] New Draft Charter

Dear WG, > Rob and I will coordinate with the bmwg chair on the "perf & measurement" part > of the charter and then issue a WGLC, after which we'll enter negotiations > with > the AD(s) regarding deliverables and milestones. just FYI, this is still ongoing. Nothing controversial, but since we'r

Re: [DNSOP] New Draft Charter

Dean, > > If you could support this observation by tangible textual reference, that > > would > > be appreciated. As a side note, there is an IETF liaison to ICANN, > > independent > > of whatever WG charter. > > I'm not sure what you mean to dispute. The text of the charter I quoted > cites "T

[DNSOP] WGLC: "Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"

Dear WG, in accordance with the roadmap posted the other day, this is to initiate a working group last call on "Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping" draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.txt ending Friday, 2008-04-04, 18:00 UTC. The document is aimed a

Re: [DNSOP] New Draft Charter

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:30:56AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: [...] > could be altered slightly to > > The DNS Operations (DNSOP) Working Group will develop and review > guidelines for the correct, efficient and secure configuration, > administration, and operation of DNS a

[DNSOP] short term document roadmap

Dear WG, during the DNSOP session in Philadelphia the people present felt that there were a couple of active drafts ready for WGLC but it would be a good idea to spread the actual Last Calls to avoid peaks of load for the volunteer reviewers and other entities involved. So, here's an outline for

Re: [DNSOP] New Draft Charter

Dean, > So root and gTLD DNS server operations supervision is off the charter? to the extent that is has never been there, yes. > It used to be the first item. This appears to affect ISOC IETF > commitments to ICANN to provide this technical role. If you could support this observation by tan

[DNSOP] New Draft Charter

Dear WG, after several attempts, here is the most recent version of the new DNSOP charter to be discussed in tomorrow's WG session: - The DNS Operations (DNSOP) Working Group will develop and review guidelines for the co

[DNSOP] FWD: RFC 5158 on 6to4 Reverse DNS Delegation Specification

Since draft-huston-6to4-reverse-dns-XX.txt was kind of a foster child of this WG, here's the publication note. Thanks to Geoff and especially to our AD for getting this through the IESG! -Peter - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [

[DNSOP] Call for Agenda Items

Dear WG, it's only four weeks left to IETF71, so here's the usual call for agenda items. Please submit any proposals and suggestions to Rob and me by Tuesday, 26 FEB, 2200 UTC. The preliminary agenda at gives us a two hour slot on Tuesday after

[DNSOP] FWD: Document Action: '6to4 Reverse DNS Delegation Specification' to Informational RFC

Dear WG, FYI, draft-huston-6to4-reverse-dns-07.txt, reviewed here upon request of the IAB, was approved by the IESG. Thanks a lot to all involved! -Peter - Forwarded message from The IESG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: The IESG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: IETF-Announce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc:

  1   2   >