Re: [DNSOP] DNS names for local networks - not only home residental networks ...

> On Sep 2, 2017, at 8:29 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2017, Walter H. wrote: >> If you are a company and you are using a hardcoded domain of "local", then you have been and still are, completely broken. The only fi

Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

> On Jul 4, 2017, at 3:39 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > >> The Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement document unsurprisingly >> contains a list of problems. > > is there a companion document with the list of benefits/advantages? It's a list of problems, not solutions, so there aren't benefits a

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-06.txt

omain Names Problem Statement >> Authors : Ted Lemon >> Ralph Droms >> Warren Kumari >> Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-06.txt >> Pages : 28 >> Date: 2017-06-27 >> >&

Re: [DNSOP] AD review: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Thanks for the review and helpful comments, Benoit. Ted, Warren - I'm login to be tied up with some family stuff through the weekend. If none of us get to it, I can process Benoit's comments Monday. - Ralph > On May 30, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > > Dear authors, > > Here is m

Re: [DNSOP] extended deadline Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

I see that draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08 gives the intended status of the document as Informational, while it is listed in the datatracker as "In WG Last Call: Proposed Standard". There are arguments in favor of each status. The relevant text is in section 5 of RFC 6761: An IETF "Standards

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03.txt

> On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:17 AM, Petr Špaček wrote: > > On 21.3.2017 13:23, Ralph Droms wrote: >> Petr, thanks for your review and feedback... >> >>> On Mar 15, 2017, at 6:52 AM, Petr Špaček wrote: >>> >>> On 14.3.2017 12:28, Ralph Droms w

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 5:54 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: >> As Matt Larson just pointed out, "different protocol" may turn into a >> distraction. .homenet is asking for an entry in the special-use domain name >

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: >> No snark intended, but if "the protocol" were really just DNS, we wouldn't >> be having this discussion. Rather, it is the DNS wire protocol using a >

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: > > > > On 23/03/2017 10:34, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > >> I’m trying to make sure I understand what the special use reservation >> accomplishes in the absence of the insecure delegation. >> >> If I read your comment correctly, I can infer two thi

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > Hi Ray, > >> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: >> >> I consider them to be _independent_. The special use reservation >> mustn't be held up waiting for the requested insecure delegation. > > I’m trying to make sure I under

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 22, 2017, at 1:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 09:19:24AM -0700, Ray Bellis wrote: >> Arguably I'm not "typical", but IMHO we shouldn't be designing for the >> lowest common denominator. > > That argument is absurd on the face of it, because anyone su

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Tim Chown wrote: > >> On 21 Mar 2017, at 17:30, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> >> Jim, >> >> In the interests of preserving a distinction here that I believe is >> important: >> >>> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Jim Reid wrote: >>> >>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 13:

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > >> On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Ralph Droms wrote: >> >> If draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03 specified homenet.arpa, the IETF could assign >> as many different names as wanted for different scoping scenarios, without >

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Philip Homburg > wrote: > >> This .home / .homenet issue has already been going on for a very >> long time. The longer we wait with resolving this issue, the worse >> the deployment situation will be of software mixing .home vs >>> homenet. > > Do we really expe

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 12:22 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:14:25PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote: > >> Russ - In my opinion, the special-use domain registry is not being >> used to put the name in the root zone. The observat

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Ted - has the operation of .homenet, as described in draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03, been demonstrated? - Ralph ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03.txt

Petr, thanks for your review and feedback... > On Mar 15, 2017, at 6:52 AM, Petr Špaček wrote: > > On 14.3.2017 12:28, Ralph Droms wrote: >> draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 includes revised text to address issues raised >> during the WG last call and other editorial impro

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On Mar 20, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > > >> >>> We have a different view of the intended purpose of the special-use TLD >>> registry. Sadly, the RFC does not include language that resolves this >>> difference. >> >> I understand that we have different views. However, I am a

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

> On Mar 16, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Edward Lewis wrote: > > On 3/15/17, 20:22, "DNSOP on behalf of Russ Housley" on behalf of hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote: > >> I see that draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 still references >> I-D.lewis-domain-names, but I have not seen ant WG Last Call for that >> doc

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03.txt

Authors : Ted Lemon > Ralph Droms > Warren Kumari > Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03.txt > Pages : 27 > Date: 2017-03-13 > > Abstract: > The Special-Use Domain Names IANA regist

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps and draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

> On Mar 12, 2017, at 7:10 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > > For what it is worth, reviewed these documents today > as an interested individual, and both seem to be OK > from my (very limited DNS expertise) perspective. > > Thanks for your work on this important space. And thank you for your review an

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

We've extracted issues from the reviews of draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps posted to the list so far, and entered them into the GitHub repo: https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps We're tracking discussion and resolution for issues there

Re: [DNSOP] A nudge on the new terms in draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

Paul - I finished my review of the terminology doc; added 1 issue today. - Ralph > On Feb 8, 2017, at 4:31 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > [[ Hopefully the WG can focus on multiple topics at once; this one has an > effect on the upcoming interim WG meeting. ]] > > [[ We got a few responses to our

Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 9:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 07:59:24PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote: >> Mark, I don't think you've actually given an answer to my question. >> I understood that .ALT was for alternative naming systems, not for >> DNS locally-served zones. We simpl

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Thanks for your review and comments, Russ. I've extracted the issues from your review and entered them in the GitHub issue tracker for the document. - Ralph > On Feb 6, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > >> >> This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: >> >> "Special-Use Names P

Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

> On Feb 6, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Ólafur Gudmundsson wrote: > > Ted, > > What RFC are you referring to? > > Why do you think .ARPA is for services? > It's for infrastructure and homenet wants to join the infrastructure. > > It is waste of time arguing if name A or B is better take the one you c

Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 3:49 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > Hi, > > To sharpen the question slightly…. > >> On Feb 1, 2017, at 5:11 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: >> >> >>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 4:42 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >>> >>> >&

Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

> On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:58 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:50 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: >>> It appears to me that requesting an insecure delegation is the right thing >>> to do, as a "technical use". We have, so far, been very careful in wha

Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

> On Feb 1, 2017, at 4:42 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > In message <1b8e640b-c38e-4b76-a73d-7178491a9...@fugue.com>, Ted Lemon writes: >> >> On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:50 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: >>>> It appears to me that requesting an insecure dele

Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

> On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:47 PM, Bob Harold wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Warren Kumari > wrote: > Hi there all, > > I have just posted a new version of alt-tld, which folds in a number > of suggestions and comments from various people -- thank you for >

Re: [DNSOP] Terminology issue #8: context

> On Jan 29, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > On 29 Jan 2017, at 5:26, Ralph Droms wrote: > >>> On Jan 28, 2017, at 4:22 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> >>> On 28 Jan 2017, at 12:28, Ralph Droms wrote: >>> >>>> I&#x

Re: [DNSOP] Terminology issue #8: context

> On Jan 28, 2017, at 4:22 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > On 28 Jan 2017, at 12:28, Ralph Droms wrote: > >> I've submitted three issues to the doc repo: >> >> Issue #8: https://github.com/DNSOP/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/issues/8 >> <https://g

Re: [DNSOP] Big changes in draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

I've submitted three issues to the doc repo: Issue #8: https://github.com/DNSOP/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/issues/8 Add "context" as a facet in the definition of a naming system. A naming system needs a context in which

Re: [DNSOP] getting back to our work on special use names

> On Jan 13, 2017, at 9:47 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:41 PM Suzanne Woolf wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > > It's time to get back to our work on special use names. As the chairs see it, > here's what we need to do between now and IETF 98 (end of March). We'll

Re: [DNSOP] [homenet] WGLC on "redact" and "homenet-dot"

> On Dec 14, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: > > > > On 14/12/2016 21:16, Jim Reid wrote: > >> So what? End users are not expected to see this string, far less care >> about it, are they? Surely this string is primarily, if not >> exclusively, for CPE firmware? > > Actually, yes, they ar

Re: [DNSOP] [homenet] WGLC on "redact" and "homenet-dot"

> On Dec 14, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > > On 12/14/2016 12:34 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: >> Mike, >> >> A query to the root for .homenet results in a *signed* answer that .homenet >> does not exist. This should suffice for the purpose you have in mind. > > Yup - that's my comm

Re: [DNSOP] [homenet] WGLC on "redact" and "homenet-dot"

Is there any way this discussion could be moved to homenet, which is where the use case originates and the WG last call is taking place? - Ralph > On Dec 14, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > > If it doesn’t have a globally unique meaning, it doesn’t make sense to query > the root for

Re: [DNSOP] special use names and unsecured delegation from the root

Ted, Suzanne - it might be helpful if the text can stand by itself, to post the text to the homenet and snoop WG mailing lists, in addition to adding i too the problem statement. - Ralph > On Nov 17, 2016, at 3:43 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > It's pretty clear that it needs to be added. I will

Re: [DNSOP] Tell me about the ISO 3166 user assigned two-letter codes and TLDs

> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:56 AM, hellekin wrote: > >> On 09/29/2016 05:42 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: >> >> The one option you have is ".example", unfortunately (and in sympathy) >> I don't have a better suggestion. >> > > .example is for documentation. You can use .invalid for "fake private > TL

Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

> On Sep 17, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > I would just like to point out that what we are talking about doing is > documenting the problem that we think needs to be addressed. One of the > reasons we published a new document about this is that it seemed that the > original effor

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 2:32 PM 3/30/16, David Conrad > wrote: > > Suzanne, > > > On Mar 29, 2016, at 5:23 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> I’ve always seen people assume that an entry in the special use names >> registry means that ICANN won’t delegate the same string in the DNS root. > > I thou

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

> On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:41 PM 3/28/16, Alain Durand > wrote: > > Andrew, > > This is the very registration in 6761 that makes (or would make) those names > special, i.e. not ordinary. Those name could as well have been reserved in > the previous ICANN gTLD round or in the next one for regula

[DNSOP] WG last calls on dnssd WG drafts of interest to dnsop

The dnssd WG is currently conducting two WG last calls of interest to dnsop WG participants: draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-02 draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid-03 Both of these last calls are scheduled to conclude on March 31. The dnssd WG chairs would greatly appreciate review and feedback on these

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

> On Mar 28, 2016, at 9:11 AM 3/28/16, Alain Durand > wrote: > > On 3/26/16, 11:30 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Andrew Sullivan" > wrote: > >> I guess my point was merely that your examples seemed only to be >> arguing from this or that trade or service mark to some conclusion >> that the IETF had

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

> On Mar 25, 2016, at 9:37 PM 3/25/16, Paul Hoffman > wrote: > > On 25 Mar 2016, at 8:33, Ralph Droms wrote: > >> I'm responding here with none of my various hats on... > > As are we all. (Or, in some of our cases, wearing none of our organization's >

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

Thanks for the quick followup, David... > On Mar 25, 2016, at 1:04 PM 3/25/16, David Conrad > wrote: > > Ralph, > > On Mar 25, 2016, at 8:33 AM, Ralph Droms wrote: >> I'm responding here with none of my various hats on... > > Me too. > >> RD&g

Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

I'm responding here with none of my various hats on... Here's the tl;dr version. This document has some useful information and raises, directly and indirectly, some important questions that the IETF should consider. Unfortunately, those useful bits are buried in a polemic that is directed tow

Re: [DNSOP] draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-bit

> On Nov 22, 2015, at 9:03 AM 11/22/15, Stephane Bortzmeyer > wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 12:08:42PM +0100, > Christian Grothoff wrote > a message of 13 lines which said: > >> We have solicited but failed to receive any feedback from the dnsop >> chairs or list on how to improve/revise

Re: [DNSOP] Requesting review of draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-01

Second try... > On Jul 21, 2015, at 4:06 AM 7/21/15, Ralph Droms (rdroms) > wrote: > > Hi - The dnssd chairs would like to get some reviews of > draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-01, "On Interoperation of Labels Between > mDNS and DNS," from dnsop participants

[DNSOP] Requesting review of draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-01

Hi - The dnssd chairs would like to get some reviews of draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-01, "On Interoperation of Labels Between mDNS and DNS," from dnsop participants. draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-01 is currently in dnssd WG last call and last call comments will be discussed in the dns

[DNSOP] Fwd: Last Call: (Special-Use Domain Names) to Proposed Standard

FYI; review and comment requested... - Ralph Begin forwarded message: From: The IESG Date: January 17, 2011 3:00:48 PM PST To: IETF-Announce Subject: Last Call: (Special-Use Domain Names) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the foll