[DNSOP] Re: DNS traceroute - in-person discussion after dnsop WG on Thursday (today)

nd then we can continue on the mailing list once the initial round >> of arguing is finished. > > A very long time ago I seem to recall Roy Arends describing a prototype > mechanism or extension to accomplish what you are looking for. I can't > remember any of the details

[DNSOP] Re: New Version Notification for draft-vandijk-dnsop-ds-digest-verbatim-02.txt

Thanks Paul! Glad you did upload that and apologies for the misinformation. Warmly, Roy > On 4 Nov 2024, at 18:37, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Nov 2024, Roy Arends wrote: > >> While I thought this was an original idea when I heard it during the DELEG >>

[DNSOP] Re: New Version Notification for draft-vandijk-dnsop-ds-digest-verbatim-02.txt

> Previous discussion on this draft is in > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Ak5XVuiLnlGxwatbKlYpcWnpE4o/ > > (Thanks to Roy Arends for pointing out that IDENTITY might be a more > technically correct name for this, although we both feel it is likely not > the -best- name.)

[DNSOP] Response to draft-fbw-dnsop-dnszonehop

I saw this on the agenda for this afternoon. The proposed solution against zone-walking is to exclude names from an nsec chain. Example, say "B" needs to kept private from zone-walking, so have: A.example. NSEC C.example. B.example. A 192.168.10.10 C.example. NSEC ... This is a terrible idea.

Re: [DNSOP] [Last-Call] Tsvart telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07

> On 14 Feb 2024, at 03:31, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Feb 2024, Roy Arends wrote: > >>> 1. There is a recommendation to use DNS COOKIEs [RFC7873] over UDP (PS), >>> but no >>> statement about how to mitigate the effects when these are not used.

Re: [DNSOP] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07: (with COMMENT)

> On 8 Dec 2023, at 21:19, John Scudder via Datatracker > wrote: > > John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the T

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07

Hi Carlos, > On 9 Dec 2023, at 14:43, Carlos Pignataro via Datatracker > wrote: > > Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro > Review result: Ready with Nits > > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting > > Hi! > > I was assigned a review of draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures, for > an > INTDIR Tel

Re: [DNSOP] Dnsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07

Thanks James Roy > On 10 Dec 2023, at 22:28, James Gannon via Datatracker > wrote: > > Reviewer: James Gannon > Review result: Ready > > Hi Folks, > I have reviewed 07 against the feedback on both the -04 and -06 and the > document seems to be in good shape to move forward at this time. Thank

Re: [DNSOP] Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07: (with COMMENT)

> On 12 Dec 2023, at 08:17, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker > wrote: > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC l

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07: (with COMMENT)

Hi Martin, Thanks for this. I’ve responded to Gorry just now. Warmly, Roy > On 12 Dec 2023, at 20:36, Martin Duke via Datatracker > wrote: > > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07: No Objection > > When responding, please keep t

Re: [DNSOP] Tsvart telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07

> On 7 Dec 2023, at 12:33, Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker > wrote: > > Reviewer: Gorry Fairhurst > Review result: Ready with Issues > > This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's > ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written > pri

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Paul, > On 13 Dec 2023, at 02:18, Paul Wouters via Datatracker > wrote: > > Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in t

Re: [DNSOP] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07: (with COMMENT)

Hi Zahed > On 14 Dec 2023, at 09:43, Zaheduzzaman Sarker > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I will take this discussion as a confirmation that the error reporting is > also applicable to DoQ. In that case, just focusing on TCP might not be the > best solution and it seems like having a general stateme

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07: (with COMMENT)

Hi Robert, comments below. > On 14 Dec 2023, at 10:02, Robert Wilton via Datatracker > wrote: > > Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-07: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > emai

Re: [DNSOP] BoF: New DNS Delegation, was DELEG Capabilities BoF

> On 1 Feb 2024, at 23:03, Paul Vixie wrote: > > Thanks Roy. Would a new working group be open to skeptics? I remain concerned > about gradually increasing systemic complexity, and I have some ideas about > how some stated goals of the DELEG proposal could have complexity increase > precisel

[DNSOP] BoF: New DNS Delegation, was DELEG Capabilities BoF

Dear DNSOP, After the DNSOP Interim, I had a short discussion with Warren Kumari about the vagueness of the request. I have now updated the request to reflect the sentiment of the interim and to make sure that there is the opportunity to form a WG if there is the desire to do so. https://datat

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOPComments on draft-dnsop-deleg-00.txt - section 1

> On 30 Jan 2024, at 15:11, John Levine wrote: > > It appears that Ralf Weber said: >> I agree that future extensions will require code changes, but having a >> record type that is extensible from the start might make it easier to >> deploy new parameters then it is to do a full RRTYPE, at le

Re: [DNSOP] draft-dnsop-deleg-00

> On 30 Jan 2024, at 15:05, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Jan 2024, Roy Arends wrote: > >> DNSSEC is not mandatory, it is recommended. >> >> One motivation behind DELEG is the ability to use “Aliasmode” to point to an >> SVCB record elsewhere, whic

Re: [DNSOP] draft-dnsop-deleg-00

Hi Joe, > On 30 Jan 2024, at 12:57, Joe Abley wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have read draft-dnsop-deleg-00 and have some comments. It seems premature > to offer actual text as well as commentary but I can definitely do that if > the authors would like. I am fully enthusiastic about updating delega

Re: [DNSOP] DELEG-00 draft submitted

No problem John! Thanks Roy > On 23 Jan 2024, at 16:54, John Levine wrote: > > According to Roy Arends : >> Hi, >> >> I’ve been made aware that the name of the submitted draft is not in line >> with the guidelines: >> ... >> >> I’ll wait

Re: [DNSOP] DELEG-00 draft submitted

WG chairs regarding the name, until then, happy reading! Thanks! Roy > On 23 Jan 2024, at 12:50, Roy Arends wrote: > > Please find draft-dnsop-deleg-00: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dnsop-deleg/ > > This document is the result of a set of ideas concoct

[DNSOP] DELEG-00 draft submitted

interim DNSOP WG. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bofreq-arends-deleg-capabilities/ Please note that the BoF request information is expected to be updated. Warmly, Roy Arends ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis

Let me try that again with proper indentation. > On 9 Jan 2024, at 01:54, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > All > > > This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis > "Initializing a DNS Resolver with Priming Queries" > > Current versions of the draft is available here: > https:/

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis

> On 9 Jan 2024, at 01:54, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > All > > > This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis > "Initializing a DNS Resolver with Priming Queries" > > Current versions of the draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc

Re: [DNSOP] [dnsdir] [Ext] Dnsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-06

> On 6 Nov 2023, at 15:41, Dave Lawrence wrote: > > Roy Arends via dnsdir writes: >> Why would you, as an implementor, guess? > > Because you've only said only "responses", and then also provided a > document that largely talked about DNSSEC as examp

Re: [DNSOP] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-06

Hi Peter, Thanks for your review. > On 5 Nov 2023, at 12:42, Peter Yee via Datatracker wrote: > > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] [dnsdir] Dnsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-06

Hi Tale, > On 5 Nov 2023, at 15:55, Dave Lawrence wrote: > > One last bit of wondering I have is about this paragraph from Security > Considerations: > > "This method can be abused by intentionally deploying broken zones > with agent domains that are delegated to victims. This is > particularl

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Dnsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-06

Thanks Dave, Comments inline. > On 5 Nov 2023, at 15:04, David Lawrence via Datatracker > wrote: > > Reviewer: David Lawrence > Review result: Ready with Issues > > Hi Roy and Matt, this is my review on behalf of the DNS Directorate. > > There are only a couple of minor substantive points th

Re: [DNSOP] [IANA #1285116] expert review for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting (Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names)

> On 31 Oct 2023, at 23:38, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2023, at 19:17, Frederico A C Neves wrote: >> >> Dear David, >> >> Section 7 of the draft is sufficiently clear, precise, and complete. >> >> This registration at the time it is approved by the IESG, taking in >> account the fa

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-06

> On 17 Oct 2023, at 12:33, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > > On 17/10/2023 12:05, Roy Arends wrote: >> Thanks Gorry, >> >> Comments inline. > See a quicjk response as GF: >>> On 17 Oct 2023, at 10:22, Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker >>> wrote: >

Re: [DNSOP] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-06

Thanks Gerry, Comments inline. > On 17 Oct 2023, at 10:22, Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker > wrote: > > Reviewer: Gorry Fairhurst > Review result: Not Ready > > This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's > ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These com

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] AD Review of: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting

Warren, Thanks for your feedback. I can add to the last line of the second paragraph in the abstract as follows Original: To mitigate this lack of feedback, this document describes a method for a validating recursive resolver to automatically signal an error to a monitoring agent specified by

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-05.txt

he Domain Name >> System Operations (DNSOP) WG of the IETF. >> >> Title : DNS Error Reporting >> Authors : Roy Arends >> Matt Larson >> Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-05.txt >> Pages

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting

Hi Viktor, Again, thank you for your detailed, in-depth and insightful response. My comments are inline, and I’ve removed the parts in agreement. > On 10 Jul 2023, at 17:58, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 12:17:34PM +0100, Roy Arends wrote: > >>&g

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting

Ben, Thanks for this! Comments inline. > On 23 Jun 2023, at 02:27, Ben Schwartz > wrote: > > I want this draft to move forward, but upon review I noted with concern the > security section text: > >DNS error reporting is done without any authentication between the >reporting resolver

Re: [DNSOP] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-04

Hi Yaron, > On 9 Jul 2023, at 18:27, Yaron Sheffer wrote: > > Hi Roy, > > Please see some responses below, prefixed with YS. > > Thanks, > Yaron > > On 05/07/2023, 14:31, "Roy Arends" mailto:r...@dnss.ec>> > wrote: > > > Yaron, ma

Re: [DNSOP] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-04

Mixup on my part! Thanks Yaron, (And Mark for a private reply) Roy > On 9 Jul 2023, at 19:07, Roy Arends wrote: > > Thanks Mark, will have a look! > > Warmly > > Roy > >> On 9 Jul 2023, at 18:27, Yaron Sheffer wrote: >> >> Hi Roy, >> &

Re: [DNSOP] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-04

Thanks Mark, will have a look! Warmly Roy > On 9 Jul 2023, at 18:27, Yaron Sheffer wrote: > > Hi Roy, > > Please see some responses below, prefixed with YS. > > Thanks, >Yaron > > On 05/07/2023, 14:31, "Roy Arends" mailto:r...@dnss.ec>>

Re: [DNSOP] Dnsdir early review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-04

Thanks James, I will update the Drink POC link Warmly, Roy > On 7 Jun 2023, at 22:10, James Gannon via Datatracker > wrote: > > Reviewer: James Gannon > Review result: Ready > > Hi Folks, > I am the assigned DNSDIR reviewer for this draft. > Thank you for a well-written draft that appears c

Re: [DNSOP] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-04

Yaron, many thanks for your review. Comments inline: > On 26 Jun 2023, at 13:24, Yaron Sheffer via Datatracker > wrote: > > Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer > Review result: Has Nits > > I am not a DNS expert so these may or may not be real issues. But I would > appreciate the authors' clarifications.

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting

porting Resolver Specification states: "The EDNS0 report channel >> option MUST NOT be included in queries." > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:20:51PM +0100, Roy Arends wrote: >> >> Ah, yes, I will remove that sentence completely! > > So, under what conditio

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting

> On 20 Jun 2023, at 23:35, Dick Franks wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 22:20, Roy Arends wrote: >> 8 > >> >> The change was from -03 to -04 and discussed in the WG IIRC. The specific >> sentence your refer to was a lingering oversight in the

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting

> On 20 Jun 2023, at 21:39, Dick Franks wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 12:21, Roy Arends wrote: >> 8 > >>> On 20 Jun 2023, at 12:14, Willem Toorop wrote: >> 8 > >>> I have one nit. >>> >>> In the Example in section 4.2

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting

Thank Dick! > On 16 Jun 2023, at 18:33, Dick Franks wrote: > > All > > I have reviewed the document which appears to be almost ready for > submission to IESG. > > > Subsection 6.1.1 uses QNAME to refer to two different entities. > The opening sentence needs to say nothing more than that the r

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting

Hoi Willem, > On 20 Jun 2023, at 12:14, Willem Toorop wrote: > > Op 08-06-2023 om 11:59 schreef Benno Overeinder: >> Dear DNSOP WG, >> >> The authors and the chairs feel this document has reached the stage where >> it's ready for Working Group Last Call. >> >> This starts a Working Group Last

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOPWorking Group Last call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting

> On 9 Jun 2023, at 16:38, Wes Hardaker wrote: > > Benno Overeinder writes: > >> This starts a Working Group Last Call for: >> draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting. > > Overall: I support the publication of this document and believe it is a > good addition to the DNS specifications. > > Some

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting

Thanks Benno! I have received a fix from Dick Franks. I forgot to update this field from: Value Name Status Reference - --- TBD Agent-Domain Standard [this document] To: Value Description Status Referenc

[DNSOP] Additional resources for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting

Hi, the DNSOP chairs have opened the "additional resources" section on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting/ This currently lists the Unbound PoC for error reporting. If you have an implementation that supports it, let me (or Benno) know and it will be added. T

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-03.txt

> On 26 Oct 2022, at 11:05, Eduardo Duarte > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm not active in the WG but some one point out this draft during last week > DNS-OARC meeting and I have a question for the Authors. > So from my understanding after reading the Draft all the reporting is done > over DNS

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bcp-05.txt

> On 10 Oct 2022, at 20:17, Brian Dickson wrote: > > One question about the third iteration itself that I have: Is the mandatory > element "3" (the protocol field in DNSKEY record) related to this being the > third iteration? It is not. RC 3445 explains it in detail, and closes the KEY (and

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bcp-04.txt

> On 7 Oct 2022, at 17:21, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Oct 2022, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> On Monday, I'll do a new draft with: >> >> What we today call "DNSSEC" is the DNSSEC specification defined in >> {{RFC4033}}, {{RFC4034}}, and {{RFC4035}}. >> However, earlier incarnations of DNSS

Re: [DNSOP] An Orderly Way Forward on Special Use Names (Yes, again)

S > protocol work. I believe that too. > Reviving it for another round in dnsop seems wrong. I agree. Roy Arends -- > > Paul Wouters > > >> >> On Oct 2, 2022, at 20:56, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> >>  >> Dear colleagues, >> >> The ch

Re: [DNSOP] [internet-dra...@ietf.org] New Version Notification for draft-hardaker-dnsop-must-not-sha1-00.txt

Wes, What is missing is how validators/validating resolvers should behave when presented with SHA1. Roy > On 12 Aug 2022, at 16:48, Wes Hardaker wrote: > > > Because it's time... > > Start of forwarded message > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > To:

Re: [DNSOP] Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting

> On 10 Nov 2021, at 09:35, libor.peltan wrote: > > Hi Roy, > >> Change 2) There was an observation by developers that some authoritative >> servers do not parse (unknown) EDNS0 options correctly, leading to an >> additional roundtrip by the resolver. It was suggested that authoritative >> s

[DNSOP] Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting

-error-reporting-01.txt <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-01.txt> Diffs: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-01 <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-01> Warm re

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-00.txt

Hi Petr, > On 26 Oct 2021, at 11:02, Petr Špaček wrote: > > On 26. 10. 21 11:14, Vladimír Čunát wrote: >> Hello. >>> DNS Error reporting SHOULD be done using DNS Query Name Minimization >>> [RFC7816 ] to improve >>> privacy. >> It's just a detail

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-00.txt

> On 26 Oct 2021, at 10:14, Vladimír Čunát wrote: > > Hello. > > >> DNS Error reporting SHOULD be done using DNS Query Name Minimization >> [RFC7816 ] to improve privacy. > > It's just a detail and "SHOULD" isn't strong, but I expect it might be

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-00.txt

the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the >> IETF. >> >> Title : DNS Error Reporting >> Authors : Roy Arends >>

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-00.txt

s draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the >> IETF. >> >> Title : DNS Error Reporting >> Authors : Roy Arends >> Matt Larson >> Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOPMoving forward on draft-ietf-dnsop-private-tld

> On 30 Jul 2021, at 23:34, Wes Hardaker wrote: > > Roy Arends writes: > >> Essentially, instead of making the pond safe, we’ll have a warning >> sign that using the pond is at their own risk. > > The wording of said warning sign is the critical element, IMHO.

Re: [DNSOP] Moving forward on draft-ietf-dnsop-private-tld

s that not asserting ownership or authority over the ISO code points? Roy > > Regards, > Rob > // Ops AD > > > > -Original Message- > From: DNSOP On Behalf Of Roy Arends > Sent: 30 July 2021 19:21 > To: dnsop > Subject: [DNSOP] Moving forward on

Re: [DNSOP] Moving forward on draft-ietf-dnsop-private-tld

> On 30 Jul 2021, at 19:29, Paul Wouters wrote: > > > On Jul 30, 2021, at 14:21, Roy Arends wrote: >> >>  >> I now see that with the current status quo, this might a way forward that >> both sides of the argument might come together on. Essentially,

[DNSOP] Moving forward on draft-ietf-dnsop-private-tld

Dear WG About 40 years ago, give or take, when Jon Postel planned to use the ISO3166 two character code elements as top level domains representing country names, ISO's TC46 secretariat was contacted (as was requested to users of the ISO3166 standard at the time) and he was told that the standar

Re: [DNSOP] IETF 111 DNSOP WG session II agenda updated

Dear WG Chairs, In light of the new agenda, I’d like to reserve time for a 15 minute presentation. Warmly, Roy > On 28 Jul 2021, at 16:04, Benno Overeinder wrote: > > Dear WG, > > We have updated the agenda for DNSOP WG session II on Thursday 29 July. The > updated agenda is uploaded to d

Re: [DNSOP] Draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld and the ISO

Maybe I'm blind but I don't see a response... It has not been posted there yet. Roy > > Thanks, > Donald > === > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > d3e...@gmail.com > >

[DNSOP] Draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld and the ISO

Dear Chairs, With regards to draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld, I note that the following points were listed on the chairs’ slides today (during the first DNSOP session): ● Liaison sent per IAB on behalf of IETF, asking for guidance from ISO on whether this is an appropriate use of ISO-3166-1

Re: [DNSOP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC1035 (6601)

I agree with the errata, see inline. > On 7 Jun 2021, at 21:20, Warren Kumari wrote: > > Hi all, > > I believe that this Errata should be marked as Verified; does anyone disagree? > > Please let me know by Friday if you disagree, > W > > -- Forwarded message - > From: RFC Erra

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-dnsop-nsec3-guidance

I will contribute text, review, etc. It is suitable for adoption by DNSOP. Roy > On 10 May 2021, at 09:55, Benno Overeinder wrote: > > Hi all, > > As a follow-up to the presentation by Wes Hardaker at the IETF 110 DNSOP > meeting, we want to start a call for adoption of > draft-hardaker-dns

Re: [DNSOP] Questions on draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-01.txt

Hi Donald, > On 28 Apr 2021, at 03:34, Donald Eastlake wrote: > > I am not comfortable with grabbing all the permanently unassigned 2-letter > country codes for DNS private use. > > Note: I was the primary author of RFC 2606 and have been involved in this > sort of thing before. See > https:/

[DNSOP] Going forward on draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use

Dear WG, Joe and I have accepted the kind offer of Eberhard Lisse to help with this effort as an author. Eberhard is well aware of the various delicate balances in policy development processes within the ICANN community. As for version -01, the authors propose to separate the document into tw

Re: [DNSOP] DNS Error Reporting

Thanks! Will fix! Roy > On 30 Oct 2020, at 17:37, Dick Franks wrote: > > [Section 5] > o REPORTING AGENT DOMAIN, a Domain name [RFC8499 > ]. > should read: > o REPORTING AGENT DOMAIN, a Domain name [RFC8499 > ] in

[DNSOP] DNS Error Reporting

Dear DNS Operations folk, Matt Larson and I wrote up a method that warns a domain owner of an issue with their configuration. The idea is loosely based on DMARC (RFC7489), and on Trust Anchor signalling (RFC8145). The method involves an EDNS0 exchange, containing an “agent” domain, send by th

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] [rssac] draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld

> On 12 Oct 2020, at 08:44, Fred Baker wrote: > > > >> On Oct 8, 2020, at 7:08 AM, Daniel Migault via RSSAC wrote: >> >> Just to let you know that the draft for the private tld has been adopted as >> WG document. >> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-p

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-00.txt

> On 9 Oct 2020, at 10:38, Andrew McConachie wrote: > Hi Roy and Joe, > > It’s not clear to me whether the document is advising to only use this > facility when a sub-domain of a public domain name is unavailable, or to > optionally use this facility based on the user’s preference. What I woul

[DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld

his request. Thanks Edward for your insights and hard work! Other changes: the date. The title of the draft. The document numbering (reset to -00). Warmly, Roy Arends ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Thanks Tim, Suzanne and Benno. I will get a new version out asap. Warmly, Roy > On 30 Sep 2020, at 07:42, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > All > > The call for adoption ended some time ago, and should have been resolved > relatively quickly. However, given past controversies on related issues, we

[DNSOP] And another week ... Re: Another week ... Re: Conclusion on call for adoption of draft-arends-private-use-tld?

Hi Benno, Tim, Suzanne, Can you please let us know what is being discussed with, or asked from the ICANN Liaison, exactly? Thank you! Warmly, Roy > On 8 Sep 2020, at 10:32, Roy Arends wrote: > > >> On 4 Sep 2020, at 17:25, Benno Overeinder wrote: >> >> Dear R

Re: [DNSOP] Another week ... Re: Conclusion on call for adoption of draft-arends-private-use-tld?

That’s great. Thanks for the update. Can you please let us know what is being discussed with, or asked from the ICANN Liaison, exactly? Thanks! Warmly, Roy > > Kind regards, > > -- Benno > > > On 04/09/2020 12:19, Roy Arends wrote: >> Pretty please? >>

[DNSOP] Another week ... Re: Conclusion on call for adoption of draft-arends-private-use-tld?

Pretty please? Please with a cherry on top? Roy > On 28 Aug 2020, at 14:30, Roy Arends wrote: > > Dear WG chairs, > > More than two months have passed after the call for adoption for > draft-arends-private-use-tld has ended. I believe I counted 16 individuals > who exp

[DNSOP] Conclusion on call for adoption of draft-arends-private-use-tld?

Dear WG chairs, More than two months have passed after the call for adoption for draft-arends-private-use-tld has ended. I believe I counted 16 individuals who explicitly supported the adoption (excluding myself), and 5 against adoption. IMHO, a threshold for adoption has been reached, wouldn’t

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 18 Jun 2020, at 16:15, Ted Lemon wrote: > > For what it’s worth, I am in favor of adopting this document. With that said, > however, I do have questions, Roy. Thanks for your support. > If we use these ccTLDs as squatting domains, that means that we’re going to > see a lot of traffic at th

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 18 Jun 2020, at 17:16, Philip Homburg wrote: > >> basically all the domains you list here could have used one of >> their own domains (eg local.telus.com instead of .telus, etc) > > I wonder how that would interact with EU privacy regulations. In the common > case of an ISP providing the cust

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

:00, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Roy Arends wrote: > >>> To me it seems that most dnsop people (me included) do not want to >>> legitimize use unnecessary use of private names as it often causes >>> unnecessary pain down the road

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

> On 18 Jun 2020, at 08:03, Petr Špaček wrote: >> >> I support adoption but share opinion that the document should not be >> published as is. Ack. Please help the editors to mold it into the right structure when (if) the idea is adopted. And thank you for your support! > 1. _If possible_ u

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 16 Jun 2020, at 21:26, John R Levine wrote: > >> RFC2606: ".example" is recommended for use in documentation or as examples. > > I had my reasons for https://www.mega-xxx-babes.com That was actually funny :-) Roy ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

On 16 Jun 2020, at 19:52, John Levine wrote: > > In article <3c1f1023-d17d-4739-8ca3-23f28254a...@internetstiftelsen.se> you > write: >> I have a different use case for private TLDs and that is in teaching >> material. We give a DNS class at a university >> here and in examples you cannot be re

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

> On 16 Jun 2020, at 01:18, Wes Hardaker wrote: > > Roy Arends writes: > >> The can never be registered. There is no collision. That is the point >> of all of this. > > Then why does your draft say "unlikely" in multiple places rather than > the

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

> On 15 Jun 2020, at 22:51, Wes Hardaker wrote: > > Suzanne Woolf writes: > >> 1. This draft as written takes no formal action to reserve anything >> for any particular purpose. > > No, but it does make the recommendation to use unreserved space. No. This is not unreserved space. This is

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Hi Mike, > On 14 Jun 2020, at 21:12, Michael StJohns wrote: > > Roy et al - > > Is there a document from ICANN taking a position on the assignment of TLDs > based on ISO3166 assignments? Yes: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-iso-3166-2012-05-09-en From that page: "In 2000, t

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Hi > On 14 Jun 2020, at 14:59, S Moonesamy wrote: > > Hi Roy, Ed, > At 08:12 AM 12-06-2020, 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. > > It is difficult for me to take a pos

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

I want to make a disclaimer here for complete transparency: I am the editor of this draft. This draft is my individual submission and does not present an opinion, endorsement or anything like that from ICANN, ICANN affiliate (such as PTI) or the ICANN community. Warmly, Roy Arends > On

Re: [DNSOP] new version submitted for draft-arends-private-use-tld

> On 26 May 2020, at 16:06, Petr Špaček wrote: > > On 02. 05. 20 16:09, Roy Arends wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Ed and I just submitted a new version of our private-use TLD draft. >> >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-arends-private-use-tld-01.txt >> >&g

Re: [DNSOP] new version submitted for draft-arends-private-use-tld

Hi Partick > On 7 May 2020, at 19:40, Patrick Mevzek wrote: > > On 02/05/2020 09:09, Roy Arends wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Ed and I just submitted a new version of our private-use TLD draft. >> >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-arends-private-use-tld-01.txt

Re: [DNSOP] new version submitted for draft-arends-private-use-tld

Hi John, > On 6 May 2020, at 03:57, John Levine wrote: > > In article <5d255eee-4cab-44d6-8c47-bbe9c7f5c...@hopcount.ca> you write: >>> It contains plenty of examples of how user-assigned code elements are used >>> in the field, including >> other ISO standards, the UN, UNICODE, CAB/forum, and

Re: [DNSOP] new version submitted for draft-arends-private-use-tld

Hi Joe, thanks for your thoughtful comments. > On 6 May 2020, at 02:18, Joe Abley wrote: > > Hi Roy, > > I have read this document and I like it. > > There have been other proposals to make recommendations like this in the past > that I have not been very enthusiastic about. The reason I like

[DNSOP] new version submitted for draft-arends-private-use-tld

Hi, Ed and I just submitted a new version of our private-use TLD draft. https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-arends-private-use-tld-01.txt This draft has substantial more information than the first draft. It explains that a private-use namespace does not exist, why it is needed, and how a namespace

Re: [DNSOP] on private use TLDS

> On 28 Nov 2019, at 22:30, Doug Barton wrote: > > And if you don't think ICANN has promised to not delegate HOME, CORP, and > MAIL; you didn't read the reference I provided. From section 3.2: "The deferral is not guaranteed to be forever”. That doesn’t read like a promise to not delegate HO

[DNSOP] on private use TLDS

one TLD). > > Yes, that is a perfectly legit use. For those who are not aware, Jaap is a member of the ISO-3166 Maintenance Agency and a Category C liaison for ICANN to TC46/WG2 [1]. Therefore it is likely that he knows these things. Note that the IETF has its own liaison to ISO-TC46 (Jo

Re: [DNSOP] On .ZZ

> On 22 Nov 2019, at 21:15, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 05:16, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: > > If users need code elements to represent country names not included > in this part of ISO 3166, the series of letters AA, QM to QZ, XA to > XZ,

Re: [DNSOP] On .ZZ

> On 22 Nov 2019, at 16:26, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > > >> On Nov 22, 2019, at 12:20 AM, Shane Kerr wrote: >> "User-assigned codes - If users need code elements to represent country >> names not included in ISO 3166-1, the series of letters AA, QM to QZ, XA to >> XZ, and ZZ, and the series A

  1   2   >