[DNSOP] Re: Call for Adoption for draft-sheth-dns-integration

I like this document, and I think that DNSOP should adopt it. To address Joes concern about breadth of review, I think that the DNSOP WH Chairs should ask for early ARTART and SecDir review as soon as the document is adopted. At least that will get some additional perspectives to look at it. R

[DNSOP] Re: draft-crocker-dnsop-dnssec-algorithm-lifecycle-01

Tim: > > As a chair, the current draft appears to require seven RFCs for the lifecycle > of an algorithm. > I agree with Paul W that the WG should spend their time on other documents, > but am happy to be proven wrong. This draft does not require any RFCs. It says: ... The criteria assoc

[DNSOP] draft-crocker-dnsop-dnssec-algorithm-lifecycle-01

This document is related to draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis. We ask the DSNOP WG to adopt it. Russ > A new version of Internet-Draft > draft-crocker-dnsop-dnssec-algorithm-lifecycle-01.txt has been successfully > submitted by Russ Housley and posted to the > IETF repository. > &g

[DNSOP] draft-crocker-dnsop-dnssec-algorithm-lifecycle-00

This short Internet-Draft may be of interest to the people on this mail list. Russ > A new version of Internet-Draft > draft-crocker-dnsop-dnssec-algorithm-lifecycle-00.txt has been successfully > submitted by Russ Housley and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: d

[DNSOP] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-08

Reviewer: Russ Housley Review result: Almost Ready I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis

Tim: I looked at the diff between draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis and RFC 5933. The changes seems reasonable to me. Russ > On Feb 1, 2022, at 3:35 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > All > > We were reviewing the Working Group Last Call for this, and we received no > comments. We know there was int

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Comment: (Nameservers for the Address and Routing Parameter Area ("arpa") Domain)

I have read this document, and this seems like a fine way to separate the .arpa servers from the root servers. Russ > On May 6, 2021, at 2:48 PM, IAB Executive Administrative Manager > wrote: > > This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on > draft-iab-arpa-authoritative-serv

Re: [DNSOP] [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] tools issue? was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-00.txt

> On Sep 9, 2019, at 12:29 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2019, Robert Sparks wrote: > >> This looks correct to me both on the datatracker and at tools.ietf.org. >> >> If there's still something that's not right, please bring focus to it. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf

Re: [DNSOP] [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] tools issue? was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-00.txt

Paul: The replaces and replaced-by information comes from the submitter. In this case: Set submitter to "Willem Toorop ", replaces to draft-sury-toorop-dnsop-server-cookies, draft-eastlake-dnsop-server-cookies >> Oh, sorry. I indicated that it replaced the previous draft (and >> Don

Re: [DNSOP] KSK rollover choices

> On Oct 30, 2018, at 8:27 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > >> On 31 Oct 2018, at 11:16 am, Jim Reid wrote: >> >> On 30 Oct 2018, at 22:31, Mark Andrews wrote: >>> >>> Ultra frequent key rolls are not necessary. It takes years the latest >>> releases of name servers to make it into shipping OS’s

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

Please correct this typo: s/certs for such names/certificates for such names/ > On Jun 27, 2017, at 8:57 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operation

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-muks-dnsop-dnssec-sha3-01

> On May 8, 2017, at 12:46 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > >> The RSA KEY size allowed for these new supposed stronger Digest algorithms >> is still left at 1024 or 1280 bytes, even though number >> of other parts of the the Internet community will not consider signatures by >> keys with less than 2

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-muks-dnsop-dnssec-sha3-01

> On Apr 10, 2017, at 11:09 AM, Mukund Sivaraman > wrote: > > We kind of restarted the draft adopting RSASSA-PSS, so please can you > review it this time from scratch without looking at the diff? > > Many of the examples will need updating once algorithm numbers are > assig

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

Ralph: 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 asking you >>> specifically to articulate _your_ v

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

Ted: > There are other processes for adding names to the root zone. In my opinion, > using the special-use TLD registry as a means of putting a name, even one > that has a different scope and use case, is an end run around that process. > > So it seems to me that your position is not that it's

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

> >> 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 asking you > specifically to articulate _your_ view. > > You ha

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

Ted: >> I have a big problem with Section 6 of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03. If the >> domain name is to be published in the root zone, then I do not think that >> the special-use TLD registration is appropriate. That said, if the >> requirement for publication in the root zone is removed, I do

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

I have a big problem with Section 6 of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03. If the domain name is to be published in the root zone, then I do not think that the special-use TLD registration is appropriate. That said, if the requirement for publication in the root zone is removed, I do not have a problem

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

Ted: > On Mar 15, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2017, at 3:22 PM, Russ Housley <mailto: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 f

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

> Will I-D.lewis-domain-names be published as an Informational RFC as well? If > not, then the Introduction needs to extract highlights from that document. 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 document.

Re: [DNSOP] Ed's comment s on Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Ed: > #Special-Use Domain Names [RFC6761] created an IANA registry for > #special-use Domain Names [SDO-IANA-SUDR], defined policies for adding > #to the registry, and made some suggestions about how that policy > #might be implemented. Since the publication of RFC 6761, the IETF

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

> This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: > > "Special-Use Names Problem Statement" > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/ > Proposed status: informational > > Starts: 2 Feb. 2017 > Ends: 23 Feb. 2017 (3 weeks) > > Discussion should go to the mailing list. > >